Origen · a new plain-English translation from the Greek
In the first volume of what has been dictated by us against the discourse of Celsus entitled True Word, having concluded with the character he creates of the Jew addressing Jesus, once it had received an adequate delimitation, we resolve to compose this one, defending against the charges he brings against those from the Jewish people who have come to believe in Jesus. And this very point we note first of all: why in the world
once Celsus has decided to create a character, does he not create a Jew speaking to those who believe from among the nations, but rather to those who come from the Jews? Indeed the discourse would have seemed most persuasive to him had it been written against us. But perhaps the one who professes to know everything did not know what was fitting in the matter of this character. What, then, he says to those who believe from among
the Jews must be examined. He says that they, having abandoned their ancestral law under the delusion of having had their souls led astray by Jesus, have been quite ridiculously deceived and have deserted to another name and another way of life—not even having noticed this, that those from among the Jews who believe in Jesus have not abandoned their ancestral law. For they live according to it, having become known by the name derived from the poverty entailed by their interpretation of the law.
For among the Jews the poor man is called "Ebion," and those from among the Jews who have accepted Jesus as the Christ are known as Ebionites. And Peter too appears to have kept for a long time the Jewish customs pertaining to the law of Moses, as one who had not, by that time, taken from Jesus the lesson of rising from the letter of the law to its spirit—a lesson we ourselves have received from the
Acts of the Apostles. For "on the next day" after an angel of God had been seen by Cornelius, instructing him to send "to Joppa" for Simon called Peter, "Peter went up onto the housetop to pray, around the sixth hour, and hunger came over him, and he wanted something to eat. But while they were making it ready, a trance fell upon him, and he beholds heaven opened and a certain vessel coming down, like
a great sheet, let down to the earth by its four corners, in which were all the four-footed creatures and reptiles of the earth and birds of the sky. And a voice came to him: 'Rise, Peter, kill and eat.' But Peter said, 'By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common and unclean.' And the voice came to him a second time: 'What God
has cleansed, do not call common.'" Observe, then, in this passage the manner in which it is shown that Peter still kept the Jewish customs concerning clean and unclean things. And what follows makes clear that he needed the vision so as to share the words of the faith with Cornelius—a man not of Israelite descent by birth—and with those accompanying him, since Peter was still living as a Jew and by Jewish custom,
looking down on those outside Judaism. And in the letter to the Galatians, Paul makes clear that Peter, still fearing the Jews, having stopped eating together with the Gentiles when James came to him, "separated himself" from the Gentiles, "fearing those of the circumcision"; the other Jews did likewise, and so did Barnabas. And it followed that not
those who were sent to the circumcision did not depart from Jewish customs, when "those reputed to be pillars extended to Paul and Barnabas the right hand as a sign of partnership," "they themselves going to the circumcision," so that those others might preach to the Gentiles. But why do I say that those who preached "to the circumcision" withdrew themselves from the Gentiles and kept apart, when Paul himself became "a Jew to the Jews,"
"so that he might win Jews." For this reason, as is also written in the Acts of the Apostles, he brought forward an offering at the altar, so that he might persuade the Jews that he was not an apostate from the law. But if Celsus had known all this, he would not have put into the mouth of the Jew, speaking to those who believed after coming from Judaism, the words: "What has happened to you, fellow citizens, that you have abandoned the ancestral law and"
by that man, with whom we have just now been conversing, having had your souls led astray, been most ridiculously deceived, and deserted from us to another name and another manner of life? Since we have once come to speak about Peter and about those who taught Christianity to those of the circumcision, I do not think it out of place to set alongside this a certain saying of Jesus from the Gospel according to John, together with the
account belonging to it. For it is written that he said: "There is still much for me to tell you, yet you are unable to carry it at present; but once that one arrives, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into the whole truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but he will speak whatever he hears." And we ask, at this point, what were the "many things" that Jesus had "to say" to his
own disciples, but which they were not able to "bear" at that time. And I say: was it not, perhaps, that since the apostles were Jews, raised from childhood within the law according to the letter of Moses, that he had things to "say" about what the true law was, and of which "heavenly things" the worship carried out among the Jews was "a copy and shadow," and of which "good things to come" the law concerning food and drink and
feasts and new moons and sabbaths held "a shadow"? And these were the "many things" he had to "say" to them; but seeing that it is very difficult to overturn, from the soul, doctrines that had been all but born and bred together with a man up to his manhood, and to persuade those who had taken them up that, while these things are divine, to disturb them is impious, and this in the superiority of the knowledge that pertains to
Christ, that is, of the truth, so as to expose them as "refuse" and "loss," so that his hearers might be persuaded, he put it off to a more fitting time, the time after his suffering and resurrection. For indeed the remedy would truly have been applied untimely to those not yet able to receive it, and would have overturned the estimation concerning Jesus which they had already come to hold, as concerning the Christ and Son of the living
God. And observe whether it does not carry a meaning not to be despised, to hear in this way the words "There is still much for me to tell you, yet you are unable to carry it at present"; for "many" were the things belonging to the explanation and clarification of the law according to its spiritual sense; and the disciples, having been born among Jews and reared there, were somehow not able to "bear" them at that time. And I think that, since
Those things were a type, but the truth was what the Holy Spirit was about to teach them, which is why it is said: "When that one comes, the Spirit of truth—he will guide you into the whole truth" — as if he were saying: into the complete truth of the matters of which, being still in the types, you thought you were rendering true worship to God. And according to the promise of
Jesus, "the Spirit of truth" came upon Peter, saying to him concerning the four-footed animals and creeping things of the earth and birds of heaven: "Rise, Peter, kill and eat." And it came to him while he was still caught in superstitious scruple, for he says in reply to the divine voice: "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean." And it taught the doctrine concerning
true and spiritual foods in the words "What God has cleansed, do not call common." And afterward, in that vision, "the Spirit of truth," guiding Peter "into all the truth," told him many things which he could not "bear" during the time Jesus remained present with him in bodily form. Yet regarding these matters, another occasion will arise for
giving an account of the interpretation of the law of Moses. For now, our task is to refute the ignorance of Celsus, in whose work the Jew says to the citizens and Israelites who have believed in Jesus: "What has happened to you, that you have abandoned the ancestral law?" and so on. But how have they abandoned the ancestral law, who rebuke those who do not listen to it and say, "Tell
me, you who read the law, do you not listen to the law? Scripture itself declares that Abraham had two sons," continuing down to "which things are spoken allegorically," and what follows. And how have they abandoned the ancestral law, who constantly recall the ancestral things in their own words and say, "Does not the law also say this? For in the law of Moses it is written: You shall not
muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain. Is it oxen that God cares about? Or does he say this entirely for our sake? For it was written for our sake," and so on. And how confusedly the Jew in Celsus's work says these things, when he could have spoken more persuasively, saying that some of you have abandoned the customs on the pretext of narratives and allegories, while others, even while interpreting them spiritually as you profess, nonetheless
keep the ancestral customs no less, and others, without even offering an interpretation, are unwilling either to accept Jesus as the one prophesied or to observe, in accordance with ancestral custom, the law given through Moses, on the ground that they possess in the letter the whole mind of the Spirit. But how could Celsus make this matter clear, when among the things he went on to mention were godless sects wholly estranged from Jesus
and others that abandon the Creator, yet he failed to notice Israelites who believe in Jesus and have not abandoned the ancestral law? For it was not his purpose to examine the whole matter as a lover of truth, so that, if he found anything useful, he might accept it; but, being from the moment he heard of such things an enemy wholly bent on overturning them, he wrote them down. Then the one in his work says
a Jew, addressing those from among his people who have come to believe, saying: yesterday and the day before, at the very time we were punishing this man for leading you astray, you deserted the ancestral law—knowing nothing accurate about the things he said, as we have shown. After this, it seems to me a piece of cleverness to ask: how is it that you begin from our own scriptures, yet as you advance you dishonor them, having no other starting point to name for your
teaching than our own law? For truly, for Christians the introduction is from the scriptures of Moses and the writings of the prophets; and after this introduction, in the exposition and clarification of them, there is progress for those being introduced, as they seek out the mystery "according to revelation," kept silent "for ages eternal" (but "now" made manifest) in the prophetic utterances and in the appearing of our
Lord Jesus Christ. It is not, as you claim, that those who advance dishonor what is written in the law; rather they invest it with still greater honor, by demonstrating what depth of wise and hidden sayings those writings possess—writings not perceived by the Jews, who read them in a more superficial and mythical manner. And what is strange about the beginning of our teaching, that is, of the gospel, being
the law? Seeing that our Lord himself says to those who do not believe him: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" But also Mark, one of the evangelists, writes: "The gospel of Jesus Christ has its start, just as stands written in Isaiah the
prophet: Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you"—showing that the beginning of the gospel is anchored in the Jewish writings. What, then, is being said against us by the Jew in Celsus's text, where he says: even if someone foretold to you that the son of God would come among men, this
was our prophet, and of our God? And what charge is it against Christianity if the one who baptized Jesus, John, was a Jew? For it does not follow, because he was a Jew, that everyone who believes—whether he comes to the word from the nations or from the Jews—must, according to the letter, observe Moses' law. After this, Celsus even repeats himself
concerning Jesus, saying for a second time now that he had committed an offense and paid the penalty among the Jews; but we shall not resume the defense, being content with what has already been said. Then, since the Jew in his text belittles as stale the doctrines of the resurrection of the dead, the judgment of God, honor for the just, and fire for the unjust, claiming that Christians are taught
nothing new in these matters, and thinks by this to overturn Christianity, it must be said to him that our Jesus, seeing that the Jews were doing nothing worthy of the teachings found in the prophets, taught by means of a parable that God's reign would be taken away from them and given instead to those from the nations. For this reason one can truly see that all the myths and nonsense of the Jews of the present time
(for they do not have the light of the knowledge of the scriptures), while the truth of the Christians can lift up and elevate a person's soul and mind and persuade them to have a certain "citizenship" not like that of the Jews below—below in some sense—but rather "in the heavens"; and this is evident to those who observe the greatness of the thoughts held within the Law and the Prophets, and are able to make it plain to others as well.
Let it even be granted that Jesus performed all the Jewish customs, down to and including their sacrifices; what does this contribute toward the claim that one need not believe in him as Son of God? Jesus, then, is Son to the God who granted the Law and the Prophets; and those of us who belong to the church do not step beyond this, but rather
we have fled the mythologies of the Jews, while it is the mystical study of the Law and the Prophets that disciplines and instructs us. For those same prophets, since they do not confine the meaning of what is said to the plain historical narrative, nor to the legislation as it stands in its wording and letter, in one place say that they are indeed setting forth history, saying: "I will open my mouth in parables,
I will utter dark sayings from the beginning." And in another place, praying concerning the Law as something obscure and requiring God's help to be understood, they say in prayer: "Open my eyes, and I will perceive the wonders from your law." Let them show, then, where any hint of arrogant speech is to be found proceeding from Jesus. For how is he arrogant who says, "Learn from me, for
I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls"? Or how is he arrogant who, "when supper was being held," undressed before his disciples, girded himself with "a towel," poured "water into the basin," and washed the feet of each one, rebuking the one who did not wish to offer his feet and saying, "If I do not wash you, you have no part with me"? Or
how is he arrogant who declares, "I too came to be among you, not as one who reclines at table, but as one who serves"? Let someone prove what he lied about, and set forth great and small lies, so as to show that Jesus told great lies. But there is also another way to refute this: that just as one lie is not more of a lie than another,
so too one truth is no more true than another, nor is it true to a greater degree. As for what unholy things Jesus did, let him report them—especially the Jew in Celsus's dialogue. Is it unholy to turn away from bodily circumcision and bodily sabbath and bodily festivals and bodily new moons and clean and unclean things, and to transfer the mind to a law of God that is worthy and true and spiritual, along with
one who, as an ambassador "on behalf of Christ," knew how to become as a Jew "to the Jews, in order to win the Jews," and "to those under the law, as one under the law, in order to win those under the law"? He says that many others besides could be found of the sort that Jesus was, for those who wish to be deceived. Let the Jew in Celsus's dialogue show, then, not many, nor even a few, but even a single one such as this,
what sort of man Jesus was, bringing in a message and teachings, along with the power at work in him, beneficial to the human race and turning it away from the flood of sins. He says that this is a charge brought against the Jews by those who believe in Christ, since the Jews have not believed in Jesus as God; and we have already offered a defense on this point above, showing at the same time in what sense
we regard him as God, and in what sense we speak of him as man. "But how," he says, "could we, who declared to all mankind that one would come from God to punish the unrighteous, have dishonored him when he came?" To offer a defense against this, since it is quite foolish, does not seem to me reasonable. It is as if someone else were to say, "How could we, who taught others to be temperate, have done anything intemperate, or
how could we, who advocated for justice, have committed injustice?" For just as such things are found among human beings, so too it was a human failing that those who claimed to have believed the prophets who speak of a Christ who was to come should nevertheless have disbelieved the one who came in accordance with what was prophesied. But if we must add another reason as well, we will say that the prophets themselves foretold this very thing. Isaiah, at any rate, says plainly: "You will hear with hearing and not understand, and seeing you will see and not"
perceive; since the heart of this people has grown dull," and so forth. Let them tell us what it is that the Jews hear and what it is that the Jews see, if it is prophesied of them that they will not understand what is said, nor see in the way they ought to see what is seen. But surely it is clear that, though they looked upon Jesus, they failed to recognize who he was, and though they heard him speak, they failed to grasp, from
what was said the divinity within him, which was transferring God's oversight from the Jews to those from the nations who believe in him. One can therefore see that after the coming of Jesus the Jews have been utterly abandoned, and possess nothing of what was formerly regarded by them as sacred, nor any sign that any divinity remains among them. For there are no longer prophets among them, nor wonders,
traces of which are found to some degree among Christians, indeed some "greater" ones; and if we are to be believed when we say so, we ourselves have seen them. The Jew in Celsus's work says: "Why did we dishonor the one whom we proclaimed beforehand? Or so that we might be punished more than others?" To this too one can reply that the Jews, more than others, on account of their unbelief toward Jesus and
all the other outrages they committed against him, will suffer not only according to the judgment that is believed to be coming, but have already suffered. For what nation has been exiled from its own metropolis and from the place proper to its ancestral worship, except the Jews alone? And they have suffered this as utterly ignoble people—even though they sinned much—for no other reason so much as for what they dared against our Jesus.
After this the Jew says: "How were we supposed to consider this man god, when, among other things, he did not, as was reported, perform any of what he promised, and when, after we had convicted and condemned him and thought him deserving of punishment, he was caught hiding and fleeing most disgracefully, and was betrayed by those very men he called his disciples? And yet, being god, he says, he ought neither to have fled nor to have been led away in chains. Least of all"
by those who were with him and by everyone who had personally shared his company and made use of him as teacher, considered a savior and the child and messenger of the greatest God, was abandoned and handed over. To this we will say that we ourselves do not suppose the visible and perceptible body of Jesus at that time to be God. And why do I say the body? Not even the soul, of which it has been said,
"My soul is deeply grieved, even to death." But just as, in the account given by the Jews, the one who says, "I am the LORD, God of all flesh," and, "Before me no other god existed, and after me there will be none," is believed to be God, using as an instrument the soul and body of the prophet, so too among the Greeks the one who says, "I know"
the sand's number and the sea's dimensions, and I comprehend the mute, and I hear him who utters no speech," is deemed a god, speaking and heard through the Pythia. In the same way, among us the Word — God, and the Son of the God over all things — declared in Jesus, "I am the road and the truth and the life," and, "I am the door," and
"I am the bread of life, come down out of heaven," and whatever else is similar to these. We therefore fault the Jews for not recognizing this one as God, though he was witnessed to in many places by the prophets as a great power and as God, in accordance with the God and Father of all. For we say that it was to him that the Father, in the account of the world's creation according to Moses, spoke his commands and said,
"Let light come to be," and "Let a firmament come to be," and the rest of what God commanded to come into being; and that it was to him he said, "Let us make man according to our image and likeness"; and that the Word, having been commanded, made everything that the Father enjoined upon him. And we say these things not thrusting them forward on our own authority, but trusting the prophecies current among the Jews, wherein it is said concerning God and
his works of creation, in these very words, things that stand thus: "For he himself spoke, and they came to be; he himself commanded, and they were created." For if God commanded, and the works of creation were created, who could it be, in accordance with what pleases the prophetic spirit, who was able to fulfill so great a command of the Father, if not the one who, so to name him, is the Word ensouled and who happens to be "the truth"? And that the
one who said in Jesus, "It is I who am the way, the truth, the life," the Gospels themselves do not know to have been circumscribed as having come to be nowhere outside the soul and body of Jesus, is clear from many passages, and evident from the few that we will set forth here, which stand thus. John the Baptist, prophesying that the Son
of God was about to appear at almost any moment, not confined to that body and soul but rather present everywhere, says of him, "He stands among you, whom you do not know, the one coming after me." If, then, he had understood the Son of God to be only there, where the visible body of Jesus was, how could he have said, "He stands among you, whom you do not know"?
And Jesus himself, lifting the mind of those who were his disciples to think more greatly about the Son of God, says: "Wherever two or three have gathered in my name, there am I among them." Such too is his promise to the disciples when he says: "And behold, I am with you all the days, until the
completion of the age." We say this without separating the Son of God from Jesus; for above all, after the incarnation, the soul and the body of Jesus became one with the Word of God. For if, according to the teaching of Paul, who says, "whoever cleaves to the Lord becomes a single spirit with him," everyone who understands what it is to be joined to the Lord,
and having cleaved to him becomes a single spirit joined to the Lord, how much more divinely and greatly is that which was once composite one with the Word of God? This man, indeed, showed himself among the Jews to be "the power of God" through the wonders he performed—wonders which Celsus supposed came about by sorcery, while the Jews of that time, I know not from where, having learned the things
about Beelzebul, said he cast out "the demons" "by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons." Our Savior refuted them there for saying something most absurd, on the ground that the kingdom of evil does not yet have its end—a point that becomes plain to anyone who reads the gospel writing with good sense, though this is not the occasion to explain it. But as for what Jesus promised and did not do, let Celsus set it forth and demonstrate it.
But he will not be able to, especially since it is either from things half-heard, or from readings of the gospels, or from Jewish tales that he supposes he derives what he says against Jesus or against us. But since, again, the Jew says that "having convicted him and condemned him, we thought he deserved to be punished," let them show how those who sought to fabricate false testimonies against him convicted him—unless indeed the great
conviction against Jesus was the one his accusers stated, that "this man said: the temple of God I can tear down and raise it again in three days"; whereas he himself "spoke about the temple of his body." But they supposed, not knowing how to hear according to the intention of the speaker, that his word concerned the stone temple,
which was held in greater honor among the Jews—rather than as it ought to have been honored, the true temple of God, of the Word and of wisdom and of truth. But let someone say how it was that Jesus, in the most disgraceful way, fled and hid himself—let someone show what is worthy of reproach in this. But since he also says that he was captured, I would say that, if being captured is something involuntary, Jesus was not captured;
for he did not prevent himself from coming into the hands of men at the fitting time, as "the lamb of God" — so as to lift from it "the sin of the world." "Knowing, then, all the things that were coming upon him, he went out and said to them: Whom do you seek? And they answered: Jesus the Nazarene. He says to them: I am he. And Judas, who was betraying him, was standing with them. So then, when
he said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground. So he asked them again, "Whom are you seeking?" Once more they answered, "Jesus of Nazareth." To this Jesus replied, "I told you that I am he. If then you are seeking me, let these men go." But also to the one who wanted to help him and struck "the servant of the high priest" and cut off
"his ear," he said, "Put your sword back into its place, for all who take up the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I am not able to call upon my Father even now, and he will provide me here more than twelve legions of angels? How then would the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen this way?" But if someone supposes that these things are inventions of those who wrote the
gospels, on this basis how is it not rather the case that the inventions belong to those who speak out of hostility and hatred toward him and toward Christians, while the truth belongs to those who demonstrated the genuineness of their disposition toward Jesus by enduring absolutely everything for the sake of his words? For that Jesus' disciples had taken up such great endurance and steadfastness even unto death
with a disposition that fabricated things about their teacher that were not so — . . . . . ; and it is quite clear to fair-minded people, from the fact that they endured such great and so many things for the sake of him whom they held to be God's own Son, that they were persuaded of the things they wrote down. Next, that he was betrayed by the disciples he named — the
Jew in Celsus' work learned this from the gospels, and though he said that Judas was one of many disciples, in order that the accusation might appear to be magnified, he did not go on to examine carefully everything written concerning Judas — namely, that Judas, having fallen into conflicting and opposing judgments concerning his teacher, neither turned against him with his whole soul, nor with his whole soul kept the reverence a disciple owes a teacher. "For the
one who betrayed him gave" to the crowd that had come to seize Jesus "a sign," saying, "Whomever I kiss, he is the one; seize him" — thereby preserving something of his reverence for him; for if he had not preserved it, he would have handed him over openly, without the pretense of a kiss. Now this will not persuade everyone concerning Judas' moral choice, that alongside his love of money
and his wicked choice to betray his teacher, he had something mixed into his soul that had come to be in him from Jesus' words, bearing the trace — if I may call it so — of a remnant of goodness. For it is written that "when Judas, who betrayed him, saw that condemnation had been passed, was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins, handing them to the elders and chief priests, saying, 'I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.' But they said,
"What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing the silver pieces into the temple, he turned away, went off, and hanged himself." But if the money-loving Judas, who used to steal from what was put into "the money box" on behalf of the poor, "repented and returned the thirty silver coins to the ruling priests and the elders," it is clear that Jesus' teachings had been able to work some repentance in him, not being altogether despised by
of the traitor and one who was spat out; but also his confession, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood," belonged to one confessing the sin. And see how burning and violent the grief that came upon him from remorse over his sins, such that he could no longer bear even to go on living, but throwing the silver "into the temple" he withdrew and departed and hanged himself. For he condemned himself, showing as much as he could
even in the sinner Judas, the thief and traitor, that Jesus's teaching was present, since he was not able entirely to despise what he had learned from Jesus. Or will Celsus and his followers say that the things indicating that Judas was not entirely apostate are fabrications added even after the deeds dared against the teacher, and that the only true thing is that one of the disciples betrayed him, and
will they add to what is written that he betrayed him with his whole soul? Which is implausible, to treat everything from the same writings as hostile, both the believing and the disbelieving parts. But if we must also set forth some persuasive argument concerning Judas, we shall say that, within the collection of Psalms, the entirety of Psalm one hundred and eight contains the prophecy concerning Judas,
whose beginning is: "O God, do not pass over my praise in silence, for the mouth of a sinner and the mouth of a deceitful man have opened against me." And it is prophesied in it also that Judas, on account of his sin, cut himself off from the company of the apostles, and that a different man was confirmed in his place; and this is shown in the words "and let another take his office of oversight." But
come, suppose he had been betrayed by one of the disciples in a manner worse than Judas, one who had, as it were, poured out all the words he had heard from Jesus — what does this contribute toward an accusation against Jesus or against Christianity? And how does this prove the account to be false? We have already given a defense concerning the sequel even earlier than this, showing that Jesus was not caught while fleeing but
willingly handed himself over on behalf of all of us. And it follows from this that even if he was bound, he was bound willingly, teaching us not to undertake such things for the sake of piety unwillingly. And such arguments as these also seem to me childish, namely that a good general who has led many tens of thousands has never been betrayed, nor even a wicked bandit-chief ruling over utterly wicked men, who seems to be beneficial to those with him; while he himself, having been betrayed
by those under him, neither ruled as a good general, nor, even by deceiving his disciples, produced in those deceived the goodwill one has toward a bandit-chief, if I may so call him. For one could find many accounts of generals betrayed by their own men and of bandit-chiefs captured because of those who did not keep their agreements with them. But suppose that no general or bandit-chief has ever been betrayed;
what does this contribute toward the case against Jesus, that one of his followers became his betrayer? And since Celsus puts forward philosophy, we might ask him whether it was an accusation against Plato that Aristotle, after twenty years of listening to him, departed and accused his account of the immortality of the soul, and called Plato's Forms "twitterings."
And raising a further difficulty, we might put it this way: was Plato no longer competent in dialectic, no longer able to set forth his own thoughts, once Aristotle had left him, and did that make Plato's doctrines false? Or is it possible, even with Plato being true, as those who philosophize in his school would say, that Aristotle became wicked and ungrateful toward his teacher? But Chrysippus too—
in many places in his own writings—can be seen attacking Cleanthes, introducing innovations contrary to what Cleanthes had held, though Cleanthes had been his teacher while he was still young and just beginning philosophy. And yet Aristotle is said to have studied with Plato for twenty years, and Chrysippus too spent no small time pursuing his studies under Cleanthes; but Judas spent not even three years with Jesus. Now from
what is written in the lives of the philosophers one could find many such cases, of the sort for which Celsus accuses Jesus on account of Judas. The Pythagoreans used to build empty tombs for those who, after being drawn toward philosophy, ran back again to the life of ordinary people; and this did not make Pythagoras and his followers weak in argument and in proofs. After this
the Jew in Celsus says that, though he has much to say about the things that happened concerning Jesus, and things that are true and not like what was written by Jesus' disciples, he willingly leaves those things aside. What, then, are the true things—not like what is written in the gospels—that the Jew in Celsus leaves aside? Or is it that, employing a seeming rhetorical cleverness, he pretends
to have something to say, while in fact he had nothing to bring forward from outside the gospel capable of striking the hearer as true and as manifestly accusing Jesus and his teaching? He accuses the disciples of having invented the claim that Jesus foreknew and had foretold everything that happened to him. And this, even if Celsus does not wish it, being true, we will demonstrate from many other things
spoken prophetically by the Savior, among which he foretold what would happen to Christians in the generations that came afterward. And who would not marvel at the prediction, "You will be led away before rulers and kings on my account, as a witness to them and to the nations," and whatever else he foretold about his disciples being persecuted? For on account of what teaching among those
that have arisen among human beings are others also punished, such that one of Jesus' accusers might say that, seeing impious or false doctrines being accused, he thought to lend this too a certain dignity by pretending to foretell it about himself? For if it were necessary for people to be brought "before governors and kings" on account of doctrines, whom would it be necessary to bring but Epicureans, who do away with providence altogether, and also
the followers of the Peripatos, who say that prayers and sacrifices offered toward the divine accomplish nothing? But someone will say that Samaritans too are persecuted on account of their own worship of God. To this we will say the following: the Sicarii are executed because of circumcision, since by mutilating themselves they act against the established laws and against what has been granted to the Jews alone. And one cannot hear of a judge inquiring whether, according to this
the piety that is customarily observed, and the bandit who struggles to keep himself alive: if he abandons his position he will be released, but if he persists in it he will be led away to death. But of course it is enough to show that circumcision leads to the destruction of the one who has undergone it. Christians alone, however, in keeping with what their savior said, namely, "For my sake you will be led before rulers and kings," are permitted by their judges, right up to their last breath, to be released if they renounce Christianity, and
to sacrifice and swear according to the common customs, and so go home and live without danger. But consider whether it is not said with great authority: "Everyone who acknowledges me before others, I too will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before others," and so on. And
come up with me in reasoning to Jesus as he says these things, and see that, since these were not yet accomplished when they were prophesied, you could only say either that you disbelieve him, on the ground that he is talking nonsense and speaking idly (since the things said will not come to pass), or that you are in doubt about assenting to his words — unless it should be that, if these things are fulfilled and the teaching of Jesus's words is established, so that
governors and kings take care to put to death everyone who confesses Jesus, only then shall we be convinced that he speaks these things as one who received from God great authority to scatter this word among mankind and who was confident he would prevail. And who would not marvel, coming up in reasoning to that man teaching then and saying, "This gospel will be preached in the whole
world as a testimony to them and to the nations," when he sees that, in keeping with what was said by him, the gospel of Jesus Christ has been proclaimed, under the sky, to "Greeks and barbarians alike, both wise and foolish"? For the word spoken with power has prevailed over every nature of human beings, and there is no race of human beings to be seen that has escaped receiving the teaching of Jesus. Let
the Jew in Celsus's work who disbelieves concerning Jesus, on the ground that he foreknew everything that would happen to him, take note of the manner in which, while Jerusalem still stood and the whole Jewish worship was still being carried on in it, Jesus foretold what would happen to it at the hands of the Romans. For surely they will not say that Jesus's own acquaintances and hearers handed down the teaching of the gospels apart from writing, and that
the disciples left behind no written records concerning Jesus. It is indeed written among them: "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has drawn near." And at that time there were not yet any armies surrounding Jerusalem, encircling it, and besieging it. For this began while Nero was still reigning, and extended until the
reign of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem — as Josephus writes, because Jesus's brother James the Just (called "the Just") had been put to death, this Jesus being the one termed Christ; but as the truth establishes, on account of Jesus the Christ of God. Celsus, however, could have accepted or granted that he foreknew what would happen to him, and yet could still have thought to belittle this — which he has done in the case of the
...of powers, claiming that they had come about through sorcery, and he could indeed have said that many, through forms of divination—whether from omens of birds, or from sacrifice, or from the casting of horoscopes—came to know the things that would befall them. But he was unwilling to grant this as being something greater, while seeming, having somehow conceded that Jesus had performed these powers, to have slandered it under the pretext of sorcery. Phlegon, however, in the thirteenth or, I think, fourteenth book of his Chronicles,
also granted foreknowledge of certain future events to Christ—though confused, in what he said about Peter, into thinking it was about Jesus—and testified that events came to pass in accordance with what had been foretold by him. Yet even he, unwillingly, through his account of this foreknowledge, declared, as it were, that the doctrine handed down among the fathers of these teachings was not empty of a more divine power. And Celsus says
that the disciples of Jesus too, having nothing to object to concerning a matter plain for all to see, invented this device: saying that he had foreknown everything—failing, or being unwilling, to attend to the truthfulness of those who wrote, who indeed acknowledged that Jesus had told the disciples beforehand, "You will all fall away this night," and that this proved true when they did fall away, and that he had also prophesied to Peter, "That
before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." And that Peter did indeed deny him three times. For if they were not truthful men but, as Celsus supposes, were recording fictions, they would not have written that Peter denied him, or that the disciples of Jesus fell away. For who, even if these things happened, would have refuted the account by pointing out that this is how it turned out? And yet, as a matter of likelihood, men wishing to teach those
who read the gospels to despise death for the confession of Christianity ought to have kept silent about such things. But as it stands, seeing that the word would prevail over men by its power, they set down these things too—which, I cannot see how, would fail to harm their readers or give occasion for denial. And he says, quite foolishly, that the disciples wrote such things about Jesus as an excuse for what happened to him—just as, he says, if someone
were to say that a man is just, and then shows him doing wrong, or says he is holy, and then shows him committing murder, or says he is immortal, and then shows him dead, adding to all these that he had happened to foretell them. But his comparison is dissimilar from the outset, since there is nothing absurd in one who had taken up the purpose destined for men, concerning how one ought to live, having shown by his own example that one must die for the sake of piety—apart from the fact that it was also of use
to the whole universe that he died on behalf of mankind, as we showed in the discourse before this one. Then he supposes that the entire confession of the Passion confirms his refutation rather than dissolves it; for he did not see how much has been reasoned philosophically about this both by Paul and has been said by the prophets. And it escaped his notice that someone among those in the heresies had said
that Jesus suffered these things in appearance, not in reality. For he said this without knowing the facts—for you did not say this, that it merely seemed to impious men that he suffered these things while he did not actually suffer, but rather you openly confess that he suffered. But we do not apply "seeming" to his suffering, so that his resurrection too should not be false but true. For the one who truly died, if...
he rose, truly he rose; but the one who seemed to have died did not truly rise. Since the unbelievers mock the matter of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, we will adduce Plato too, saying that Er, son of Armenius, was raised up from the pyre twelve days later and reported the things concerning those in Hades—and, addressed to unbelievers, also the things concerning the woman who lay breathless in Heraclides'
account will not be entirely useless for this matter. Many, too, are recorded as having come back from their tombs, not only on the very day but even on the following one. What, then, is astonishing if the one who did many things beyond ordinary paradox and beyond human capacity, and so plainly that those unable to look the facts in the face—since they had actually happened—reviled them by lumping them together with sorceries, also concerning
his own death had something more: that the soul willingly left the body, but, having arranged something outside it, returned again—whenever it wishes? Such a saying is recorded in John as spoken by Jesus, in the passage: "No man takes this soul away from me; rather, I myself set it down of my own will. I hold the authority to set it down, and likewise the authority
to take it up again." And perhaps it was for this reason that he went out from the body ahead of time, so that it might be preserved and his legs not broken, as were those of the robbers crucified with him. "For as to the first man, the soldiers broke his legs, and likewise those of the second one crucified alongside him; yet reaching Jesus, once they saw he had already breathed his last, his legs they did not break
legs." We have spoken, then, also to this: whence, then, is it credible that he foretold it? And whence is the dead man immortal? Let whoever wishes learn this: immortality belongs not to the dead man, but to the one who rose from the dead. Not only, then, is the dead man not immortal, but not even the composite Jesus, before he was dead, was immortal, since he was indeed going to die. For no one who is going to die
is immortal, but becomes immortal when he will no longer die. "But Christ, once raised up from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has dominion over him"� even if those who cannot grasp how these things are said are unwilling to understand them. Utterly foolish, too, is this: what god or demon or sensible man, foreknowing that such things would happen to him, would not, if indeed he were able, have avoided them, rather than falling in with what he had already foreknown?
Socrates, at any rate, knew that he was going to drink the hemlock and die, and could have, had he been persuaded by Crito, escaped from the prison and suffered none of this; but he chose, in accordance with what seemed reasonable to him, that dying philosophically was preferable to living unphilosophically. And Leonidas too, the general of the Lacedaemonians, knowing that he was on the very point of dying along with the men at Thermopylae, did not contrive to live shamefully,
but said to those with him: "Let us breakfast as men who will dine in Hades." Those who care to collect such accounts will find many. And what is astonishing if Jesus, knowing what would happen, did not avoid it but fell in with what he too had foreknown—seeing that even Paul his disciple, on hearing what would happen to him when he went up to Jerusalem, went to meet the dangers head-on, rebuking even those who wept
about him and prevent him from going up to Jerusalem. And many of our own people, knowing that if they confess Christianity they will die, but if they deny it they will be released and recover their possessions, have despised life and willingly chosen death for the sake of piety. Next, the Jew in Celsus makes another foolish remark: how is it, he says, that if he had indeed foretold both
the one who would betray him and the one who would deny him, they would not have feared him as a god, so as no longer to betray the one or deny the other? And the most wise Celsus did not see the contradiction in this point: that if he foreknew as a god, and it was not possible for his foreknowledge to prove false, then it was not possible either for the one known to be
a betrayer not to betray, or for the one shown to be a denier not to deny; but if it were possible for this one not to betray and that one not to deny, so that the not-betraying and the not-denying could have come about in those who had learned these things beforehand, then he who said that this one would betray and that one would deny was no longer speaking the truth. For indeed, if he foreknew the one who would betray him, he saw the
wickedness from which he would betray him, which was not at all overturned by that foreknowledge. Again, if he had grasped the one who would deny him by seeing the weakness from which he would deny, he foretold that he would deny; and this weakness was not going to be so suddenly overturned by the foreknowledge. And where does this come from: 'but they themselves betrayed and denied him, giving him no thought at all'? For it has been shown concerning
the betrayer that it is false that he betrayed him while giving his teacher no thought at all; and no less is this shown concerning the one who denied him, who, after 'going out,' 'wept bitterly' after denying him. And this too is superficial: for indeed a man who is being plotted against, if he perceives it beforehand and forewarns those who are plotting, they turn back and are on their guard; yet many have plotted against
those who perceived it beforehand, all the same. Next, adding what amounts to a conclusion to his argument, he says: it did not happen because these things had been foretold — for that is impossible; but since it did happen, the foretelling is proven false. For it is altogether impossible for those who had heard beforehand still to betray and deny. But once the premises have been overturned, the conclusion is overturned along with them, namely that: (it is not the case that) because these things had been foretold, they happened. But we say that they did happen, as is possible, and since
it happened, the foretelling is shown to be true; for truth concerning future things is judged by outcomes. False, then, is what has been said by him in this way. Since it is proven false that the foretelling is false, it has also been said in vain by Celsus that: it is altogether impossible for those who had heard beforehand still to betray and deny. After this let us see what he says: these things, he says, being god, he foretold, and what had been foretold necessarily had to happen.
He is a god, then, who took his disciples and prophets — the men he ate and drank alongside — and brought them to such a pass that they became impious and unholy — the very men he ought above all to have benefited, and especially those who shared his table. Or would someone who shared a table with a man no longer have plotted against him, yet, having feasted together with a god, became a plotter? And what is even more absurd, the god himself, for the
he plotted against his fellow diners at table, making them traitors and impious men. But since you also wish us to respond to what seem to me the trivial arguments of Celsus on this point, we will say the following. Celsus supposes that a thing comes to pass because it was foretold by some foreknowledge, since it was foretold; but we, not granting this, say that the one who foretold it is not the cause of what is going to happen, on the ground that he foretold it would happen, but rather
the thing that is going to happen — even had it not been foretold, it would still happen — has furnished the cause to the one who foreknows it, for his foretelling it. And this whole matter, in fact, lies within the foreknowledge of the one who foretells it: given that a certain thing is capable of happening and equally capable of not happening, one or the other of these will be the actual case. And we do not say that the one who foreknows, by removing the possibility of its happening and
not happening, says something to this effect: this will happen absolutely, and it is impossible for it to happen otherwise. And this applies to every case of foreknowledge concerning something within our power, whether according to the divine scriptures or according to the histories of the Greeks. And what is called among the logicians the "lazy argument" is, in fact, a sophism. It will not be a sophism so far as Celsus is concerned,
but by healthy logic it amounts to a sophism. So that this may be understood, I will use, from scripture, the prophecies concerning Judas, or our savior's foreknowledge concerning him as one who would betray him; and from the Greek histories, the oracle given to Laius, granting for the present that it is true, since this does no harm to the argument. Concerning
Judas, then, it is said, spoken in the person of the savior, in the hundred and eighth psalm, whose beginning is: "God, keep not silence over my praise; a sinner's mouth, yes, a deceiver's mouth, has opened itself against me." And if you observe carefully what is written in the psalm, you will find that, just as he was foreknown to be about to betray the savior, so too he was the cause of the betrayal and deserving
of the curses spoken in the prophecy on account of his wickedness. For let him suffer these things: "because," it says, "he did not remember to show mercy, and pursued a poor and needy man." He could, then, have remembered "to show mercy" and not pursued the one he pursued; but although able to do so, he did not, but betrayed him instead, so that he is deserving of the curses spoken against him in the prophecy. And
in addressing the Greeks we will use in this same way what was said to Laius, whether the tragedian recorded the very words or their equivalent. It is said to him, then, by the one who indeed foreknew what was to come: "Sow no furrow of children in defiance of the gods' will; should you father a child, that offspring will slay you, and your entire house will pass through streams of blood." And in
this, then, it is clearly shown that it was possible for Laius not to sow "the furrow of children" — for the oracle would not have enjoined upon him something impossible — and it was equally possible for him to sow it, and neither of the two was compelled by necessity. But because he did not guard against sowing "the furrow of children," there followed, from his having sown it, the sufferings that befell Oedipus and Jocasta and their sons
...tragedy. But there is also the so-called "idle argument," which is a sophism, spoken in this form as a case put to a sick person, and as a sophism it dissuades him from using a doctor to regain his health. The argument runs like this: if it is fated for you to recover from your illness, then whether you call in the doctor or do not call him in, you will recover; but also, if it is fated for you
not to recover from your illness, then whether you call in the doctor or do not call him in, you will not recover. But it is fated either for you to recover from your illness or for you not to recover; therefore it is pointless to call in the doctor. But something like this is cleverly set up against this argument in reply: if it is fated for you to father a child, then regardless of whether you lie with a woman or refrain from lying with her, you will father a child;
but also, if it is fated for you not to father a child, then regardless of whether you lie with a woman or refrain, you will not father a child. But it is fated either for you to father a child or not to father one; therefore it is pointless to have intercourse with a woman. For just as in this case, since it is impossible and unachievable for one who has not had intercourse with a woman to father a child, having intercourse with a woman is not adopted pointlessly, so too, if recovery from illness comes about by the route
that proceeds from medicine, the doctor is necessarily adopted, and the statement "it is pointless to call in the doctor" is false. Now we have set out all this because of what the very wise Celsus put forward when he said: being God, he foretold it, and what was foretold absolutely had to happen. For if by "absolutely" he means "of necessity," we will not grant it to him, for it was possible for it not to happen. But if
he says "absolutely" instead of "it will be" — which is not prevented from being true even if it is possible for it not to happen — this does nothing to harm our argument. For it did not follow, from Jesus having truly foretold the things concerning the betrayer or the things concerning the one who denied him, that he himself was the cause of their impiety and unholy act. For our Lord, seeing his depraved character,
and knowing "what was in the man," and seeing what he would dare to do both from his being a lover of money and from his not thinking firmly and rightly about his teacher as he ought, said, along with much else, also this: "He who has dipped his hand with me in the dish, that one will betray me." But observe also the superficiality and the outright falsehood of this statement of
Celsus, in which he declares that one who has shared a table with a man would not plot against him; and that if he would not plot against a man, much more would one who has feasted together with a god not become a plotter against him. Yet everyone knows that many who have shared salt and table have in fact plotted against their fellow diners. And the history of both Greeks and barbarians is full of such examples. And indeed the
iambic poet of Paros, reproaching Lycambes for having broken his agreements after "salt and table," says to him: "and you cast off aside the great oath, both the salt and the table." And those who care for learning drawn from histories, having devoted themselves wholly to it and abandoned the more necessary lessons about how indeed one ought to live, will produce more examples still, showing that those who have shared a table with certain people have plotted against them. Then, as though he had gathered together
He stated the argument with fitted proofs and sequences of reasoning, and — what is even more absurd — God himself plotted against his own table-companions, making them betrayers and impious men. For he would not be able to show how Jesus either plotted against them or made his disciples betrayers and impious, except by the sequence of reasoning he supposed — a sequence which even the first person one meets could most easily refute. After this he says
that if this had been resolved by him, and he was punished while obeying the Father, then clearly, since he was God and willing it, the things done according to his own intention were neither painful nor distressing. And he does not see that he has contradicted himself right at his own feet. For if he granted that Jesus 'was punished,' since this had been resolved by him, and he submitted himself in obeying the Father, then clearly he was punished, and
it was not possible for the things inflicted by his punishers not to be painful, for suffering is not a matter of choice. But if the things inflicted were neither painful nor distressing to one who willed them, how did he grant the word 'he was punished'? He has not seen that, once he had taken up the body that comes through birth, he took it up as something capable of suffering and of the distressing things that happen to bodies — provided we do not understand 'distressing' as something chosen.
Just as, then, having willed it, he took up a body not altogether of a different nature from human flesh, so together with the body he also took up its pains and its distresses. In the face of these he was not so much master as to avoid suffering, since it lay with those who inflicted them to bring the distressing and painful things upon him. And we have already defended above the point that, having willed
not to come into the hands of men, he would not have come. But he came, since he willed it, on account of what had already been granted beforehand — that his dying on behalf of men would be beneficial to the whole. Next, wishing to establish that what happened to him was painful and distressing, and that it was not possible, once he had willed to bring it about, for it to be otherwise, he says: 'Why then does he wail piteously and
lament, and pray that the fear of destruction pass him by,' speaking words something like these: 'Father, if this cup can pass away'? And in this too observe the malice of Celsus, in that he did not acknowledge the truth-loving character of those who wrote the gospels — who, though able to pass over in silence the things that, as Celsus supposes, are open to accusation, did not remain silent about them, for many reasons which one will render in due season
when giving an account of the gospel. He accuses the wording of the gospel, exaggerating it tragically and setting down things that are not written; for nowhere is it found how Jesus 'wailed piteously.' And he paraphrases the words 'Father, if this can be done, take this cup away from me,' but no longer also what is recorded next to it, which of itself shows his piety and greatness of soul toward the Father — setting it down as follows:
'yet not as I will, but as you will.' But he does not even pretend to have read the ready obedience of Jesus to the Father's will concerning the things determined for him to suffer, shown in the words 'if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done' — doing something similar to those impious people who hear the divine scriptures in a more malicious way, and who twist 'injustice into
...speak of "loftiness." For they too seem to have heard "I will kill," and they often throw this at us as a reproach, but they do not even remember "I will make alive" — though the whole saying shows that those who live for the common harm and act according to wickedness are killed by God, while a better life is brought in for them instead, the life which God would grant to those who died in sin. Thus
they too have heard "I will strike," but they no longer see "and I will heal" — which is like what is said by a physician who cuts into bodies and inflicts severe wounds in order to remove from them what is harmful and hinders health, and does not stop at the pains and the incisions but restores the body through treatment to the health set before it.
But neither have they heard the whole of "For he himself causes pain and restores again," but only "he causes pain." So too the Jew set forth in Celsus's work has cited, "O Father, if only this cup could pass," but not what follows, nor what shows Jesus's readiness and steadfastness for the suffering. And these things too,
having a lengthy account drawn from the wisdom of God, would reasonably be handed down to those whom Paul called "the perfect," when he says, "But we speak wisdom among the perfect." For the present we set this aside and briefly recall what is useful to the matter before us. We said also above that some sayings belong to the firstborn "of all creation" who is in Jesus, such as: "I am
the road and the truth and life itself," and sayings like these, while others belong to the man conceived in connection with him, such as: "But now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken to you the truth I heard from the Father." And here too, then, he depicts in his human aspect both the weakness of the human flesh and the
readiness of the spirit. The weakness is in: "Father, if it is possible, may this cup pass from me." As for the readiness of the spirit, it is shown in: "Yet not as I will, but as you will." And if one must also observe the order of what was said, notice that first is spoken what one might call, in accordance with the weakness of the
flesh, a single saying; but afterward, those belonging to the readiness of the spirit are more numerous. For one is: "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me," but more numerous are: "not as I will, but as you," and: "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done."
One must also observe that it was not said, "Let this cup depart from me," but this whole statement was spoken devoutly and with qualification: "Father, if it is possible, may this cup pass from me." I know too of a certain account on this passage, that the Savior, seeing what the people and Jerusalem would suffer for the vengeance to be exacted for the deeds against
...acts dared against him by the Jews, for no other reason than that, out of love for humanity toward them, wishing that the people should not suffer what they were about to suffer, he says, "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me" — as if he were saying: since, by my drinking this cup of punishment, an entire nation will be abandoned by you, I pray, if it is possible,
for this cup to pass from me, so that your portion, which has dared to act against me, may not be utterly abandoned by you. But even if, as Celsus says, nothing painful or distressing happened to Jesus at that time, how could those who came after him have used Jesus as an example for enduring the hardships that come through piety, if he had not suffered
the things human beings suffer, but only seemed to have suffered? Further, the Jew in Celsus's work says to the disciples of Jesus, as though they had invented these things, "Not even in your lying could you plausibly conceal your fabrications." To this it will be said that there was in fact an easy way to conceal such things — namely, not to record them at all in the first place. For which of the
gospels, had it not contained these things, could have reproached us for the fact that Jesus said such things in the course of the dispensation? Celsus failed to see that it is not possible for the same people both to have been deceived about Jesus as god and as one prophesied, and also to have invented things about him while clearly knowing that their inventions were not true. Either, then, they did not invent them but truly believed them, and
wrote them down without lying, or they wrote them down after lying, in which case they did not believe them and did not, having been deceived, regard him as god. After this he says that some of the believers, as if coming to their senses out of drunkenness, altered the gospel from its original written form three times, four times, and many times over, and reshaped it, so that they might have grounds to deny it in the face of refutation. Now as for those who altered the gospel, I know of none
but the followers of Marcion and the followers of Valentinus, and I think also the followers of Lucan. But this charge, when made, is not an accusation against the doctrine but against those who dared to tamper unscrupulously with the gospels. And just as the sophists, or the Epicureans, or the Peripatetics, or whoever else may hold false opinions, are no accusation against philosophy, so those who tamper with the gospels and introduce foreign heresies contrary to the intent of Jesus's teaching are no
accusation against true Christianity. Since, after this, the Jew in Celsus also reproaches Christians for making use of the prophets who had proclaimed beforehand the things concerning Jesus, we shall say, in addition to what has already been said on this point, that he ought — as he claims, out of consideration for his readers — to have set out the prophecies themselves and, having argued in favor of
their plausibility, to have set out the refutation, as it appeared to him, of their application to Jesus. For in that way he would have seemed not to snatch up so great a topic by means of a few little phrases, especially since he says the prophetic texts could be applied with far greater plausibility to countless others than to Jesus. And he ought indeed, in the face of this proof which has prevailed among Christians as the strongest, to have taken his stand carefully and examined each prophecy
...set forth, how it can be applied to others much more plausibly than to Jesus. But he did not even understand that this, even if it were plausible when said by someone against Christians, would perhaps have been plausible if said by those alien to the prophetic writings; but as it stands, Celsus has fitted onto the person of the Jew what a Jew would not have said. For the Jew will not concede that the prophetic sayings can be applied to countless others
much more plausibly than to Jesus. But in offering, for each point, the interpretation that seems right to him, he will try to stand his ground against the Christian understanding — not speaking with full persuasiveness, but attempting to do something of the sort. We have already said above that Christ was prophesied to make use of two comings to the human race; and so there is no longer any need
for us to answer the statement made as though by the Jew, that the prophets say the one who is to come will be great, a ruler, and lord of all the earth and of all nations and armies. I think he spoke in a Jewish manner, and in keeping with their bile, reviling Jesus plausibly enough yet without proof — namely, that they did not proclaim such a destruction. And yet
neither the Jews nor Celsus nor anyone else can demonstrate with proof that a destruction turns so many people away from the flood of evils toward a life according to nature accompanied by self-control and the rest of the virtues. Celsus also flung out this: 'No one establishes a god or a son of god from such tokens and mishearings, nor from such ignoble evidences.'
But he ought to have set out the mishearings and refuted them, and presented the ignoble evidences by argument, so that if the Christian seemed to be saying anything plausible, he might try to contend against it and overturn the argument. But what he said about Jesus he answered as though about something great, yet he did not wish to see that this is exactly what the clarity concerning Jesus establishes. For just as
the sun, he says, illuminating everything else, shows itself first; so too the son of God ought to have done. We would say, then, that he did do this: for 'righteousness dawned in his days, and an abundance of peace' came about, beginning from his birth, as God prepared the nations through his teaching, so that they might come under a single king of the Romans,
and not, because of the pretext of the many kingdoms and the lack of intercourse among the nations with one another, find it harder for the apostles of Jesus to do what Jesus commanded them when he said, 'Go and make disciples of all nations.' And it is clear that Jesus was born during the reign of Augustus, who — if I may call him so — leveled through a single kingdom the many peoples upon
the earth. And it would have been an obstacle to the spreading of Jesus' teaching throughout the whole inhabited world if there had been many kingdoms, not only for the reasons already stated but also because everywhere people would have been compelled to do military service and fight wars for their homelands — which used to happen before the time of Augustus and still earlier, when there was need, as with the Peloponnesians and the Athenians
war exists in this way among others as well. How, then, could this peaceful teaching, which does not even permit its adherents to defend themselves against enemies, have prevailed, unless the affairs of the inhabited world had everywhere been changed toward a gentler state by the coming of Jesus? After this he charges the Christians with sophistry, on the ground that they call the Son of God the very Word itself, and he thinks he strengthens the
accusation, since, although we profess that the Word is the Son of God, we point not to a pure and holy Word but to a man led away and beaten to death in the most dishonorable fashion. We have already spoken about this above, as it were in summary, against Celsus's accusations; there it was shown that the "firstborn of all creation" had taken on a human body and soul, and that God gave commandment concerning so many things
in the world, and it was created. And that the one who received the command was God the Word. And since it is a Jew who says these things in Celsus, it will not be inappropriate for us to apply the text, "He dispatched his word and cured them, and rescued them from their ruin" — which we also mentioned above. I myself, having met with many Jews, even ones professing to be wise,
have never heard any of them praising the idea that the Word is the Son of God, as Celsus has claimed, attaching this to the persona of the Jew who says, "If indeed the Word is your Son of God, then we too praise it." We have already said that Jesus could be neither a charlatan nor a sorcerer; there is therefore no need to repeat what has been said,
lest we too fall into repetitions in response to Celsus's repetitions. In attacking the genealogy, he named none of the points that are actually raised even among Christians and brought forward by some as objections concerning the disagreement of the genealogies. For Celsus, that truly boastful man who claims to know everything, did not know how to raise difficulties against the scripture with any prudence. He says that those who traced the genealogy of Jesus back
from the first man and among the kings of the Jews had behaved with sheer arrogance. And he thinks he is contributing something noble by saying that the carpenter's wife, had she belonged to so great a lineage, would not have been ignorant of it. Yet what does this have to do with the argument? Suppose she was not ignorant of it — how does that harm the case before us? But suppose she was ignorant — how does it follow, from her ignorance, that her lineage
did not descend from the first man and was not traced back to those who reigned as kings among the Jews? Or does Celsus think it necessary that the poor be descended from ancestors poor in every respect, and kings only from kings? It seems to me pointless, then, to dwell on this argument, since it is obvious that even in our own times some have become poorer than Mary though descended from the rich and famous, while others, from the most obscure of nations, have become
even kings. "But what noble deed," he says, "did Jesus do, worthy of a god — despising human beings, mocking them, and treating what happened to him as a game?" When he asks this, from what source shall we answer him? Even if we are able to point out what was noble and extraordinary in what happened to him — whether from the gospels — that "the earth was shaken and the rocks were split and the tombs were opened" and
"The curtain of the temple was torn from top to bottom," and "there was darkness" during the daytime, "the sun having failed"? But if Celsus believes the Gospels where he thinks he can accuse the Christians, yet disbelieves them where they establish the divinity in Jesus, we shall say to him: My good man, either disbelieve everything and stop making accusations at all, or, believing everything, marvel at
God's Word becoming man and wishing to benefit the entire human race. It is a noble work of Jesus that even to this day, those whom God chooses to heal are cured through his name. As for the eclipse under the reign of Tiberius Caesar, during which Jesus is thought to have been crucified, along with the great earthquakes that then took place, Phlegon also recorded these, I believe, in either the thirteenth or the fourteenth book of his
Chronicles. The Jew in Celsus's dialogue, mocking, as he supposes, has written that Jesus knew Euripides' Bacchus saying, "the god himself will free me, whenever I wish." But Jews are not in the least devoted to Greek literature. Still, let it be granted that some Jew had become learned in this way; how then did Jesus, since he did not
free himself when bound, fail to have the power to loose himself? Let him believe, from my own writings, that Peter too, bound in prison, went out when an angel loosed his chains, and that Paul with Silas at Philippi in Macedonia, bound in "the stocks," was freed by divine power, at which time also the prison's "doors" "were opened." Yet it is likely that Celsus either laughs at these things or else has not
read the history at all; for he would seem to be saying against it that certain sorcerers too loose bonds and open doors by incantations, in order to lump together what is told of sorcerers with what is recounted among us. But not even the one who condemned him, he says, suffered anything, as Pentheus did when he went mad or was torn apart. He did not see that Pilate had not condemned him in that way, since he
"knew that it was out of envy that they had handed him over," the Jews, that is — just as the nation of the Jews, condemned by God's judgment, was torn apart and, worse than the tearing of Pentheus, scattered across the whole earth. And why did he willingly pass over in silence the matter of Pilate's wife, who had seen a dream and was so moved by it that she sent word to her husband, saying, "Have nothing to do with
that righteous man; for today I have suffered much because of him in a dream"? Again, too, Celsus, keeping silent about the things in the Gospel that show forth the divinity of Jesus, reproaches him on the basis of what is written there about Jesus, citing those who mocked him and put a purple robe on him and the crown of thorns and the reed in his hand. Where then,
Celsus, did you learn these things, if not from the Gospels? Did you then see these as worthy of reproach, while those who recorded them did not perceive that you would laugh at them, and others like you, but that others would take from them an example of despising those who laugh and mock at piety, directed at one who died willingly for its sake? Rather, then, marvel at their love of truth and at the fact that they recorded these things voluntarily,
he suffered for the sake of human beings and endured these things with all forbearance and patience; for it was not recorded that he lamented, or uttered anything ignoble on the supposition that he had been condemned, or cried out. But as to the objection, why, if not before, does he not now at least display something divine, and rescue himself from this disgrace, and bring justice upon those who heap insult on both himself and his father?
it must be said that a similar thing could be said to the Greeks as well, who introduce providence and accept that divine signs have occurred. Why in the world does God fail to punish the ones who insult what is divine and deny providence? For whatever answer the Greeks might give to this, we too will say the same, or even something stronger. And indeed a certain divine sign did occur from heaven: the sun was eclipsed, and
the other extraordinary events, making it plain that the crucified man possessed something divine and greater than the many. Then Celsus says: What does he say even while his body is being impaled — "what kind of ichor, such as flows in the blessed gods"? He, then, is jesting; but we, from the serious gospels, even if Celsus does not wish it, will show that the mythical and Homeric ichor did not
flow from his body. Rather, after he had already died, "one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water came out; and the one who saw it has testified, and his testimony is true, and that man knows that he speaks the truth." Now with corpses in general, "blood" sets solid and no clean "water" issues forth from them, whereas with Jesus'
dead body the extraordinary thing was that even around the dead body there was "blood and water" poured out from the side. But if, in order to accuse Jesus and the Christians, he brings forward from the gospel expressions not even correctly interpreted, while passing over in silence those that establish the divinity of Jesus, and wishes to hear about the divine signs, he should turn to the gospel himself and observe how "the centurion
and those with him who were guarding Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that happened, were greatly afraid, saying, 'Truly this was the Son of God.'" After this, the man who takes expressions from the gospel which he thinks he can accuse, reproaches Jesus for the vinegar and the gall, as though he had rushed greedily to drink and had not held out against his thirst, as even an ordinary person
often holds out. Now this belongs properly to an account by way of allegorical interpretation; but for now, a more general answer to the difficulties raised would hold, namely, that the prophets foretold this as well. For it is written in the sixty-eighth psalm, in the person of Christ: "And they gave gall for my food, and to quench my thirst they offered me vinegar."
Let the Jews, then, name whoever it is that utters these words in the prophet, and let them show from history the one who took "gall" for his "food" and was given "vinegar" to drink; or else let them dare to say that the Christ whom they suppose is going to come will experience these things — so that we may say: what then is the trouble in its having already happened, this very thing that was spoken so many years
is sufficient, together with the other prophetic foreknowledges, to move someone who examines the whole matter fair-mindedly to assent that Jesus is the Christ who was prophesied and the Son of God. After this the Jew still says to us: is this, then, what you accuse us of, most faithful ones—that we refuse to regard this man as a god, and do not concur with you that mankind's benefit is why he underwent these things, so that
we too might despise punishments? To this we shall say that we accuse the Jews, who were raised on the Law and the Prophets who foretold Christ, since they neither refute what we bring forward as proof that this man is the Christ, thereby securing an excuse for not believing by refuting it, nor, since they do not refute it, do they believe the one who was prophesied, who plainly demonstrated it in those who became his disciples
even after the time when he took on a body—that mankind's benefit was why he underwent these things, his first coming aimed not at judging the affairs of men, nor, before teaching and bearing witness about what must be done, at punishing the wicked and saving the good, but rather at sowing his own word in an extraordinary way and, with a certain more divine power, for the whole
human race, as the prophets also attested to these things. We accuse them further, because although he displayed the power he possessed, they did not believe him but said that it was "by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons," that he had cast the demons out of men's souls. And we accuse them because of his love for mankind as well, in that he overlooked not even a village of Judea, let alone a city, so that everywhere he might announce
the kingdom of God—yet slandering him, they accuse him of wandering and roaming about in a base body. For it is no base thing to have endured such labors for the benefit of all who were able, anywhere, to hear. And how is it not a plain falsehood, what is said by the Jew in Celsus, that he persuaded no one while he lived—he who did not win over even his own disciples—and was punished and endured such things
as he endured? For where did the envy stirred up against him by the chief priests and elders and scribes among the Jews come from, if not from the fact that crowds were persuaded to follow him even into the wilderness, held not only by the coherence of his words, which always suited those who heard them, but also struck with astonishment by his miracles—even those who did not believe on account of the coherence of his teaching?
And how is it not a plain falsehood that he did not even persuade his own disciples—who indeed experienced something human, out of cowardice, at that time (for they were not yet trained toward courage), yet did not set aside the convictions they had formed concerning Christ? For Peter, after denying him, realizing what evil he had fallen into, "went outside and wept bitterly"; while the rest, struck by
despondency over him (for they still marveled at him), were confirmed through his appearing to them, so that their belief grew even stronger and firmer than it had been previously, in his identity as the Son of God. And Celsus, suffering from something unphilosophical, imagines that superiority among men lies not in saving reason and a pure character, but in the position, contrary to the very case he has undertaken,
...to make a face and, having taken on what is mortal, not die — or rather to die, but not the kind of death that could become an example, for those who would come to know it from the very deed itself, of dying for the sake of piety and speaking boldly in its defense against those who err on the subject of piety and impiety, and who suppose that the pious are the most impious of all, while those who wander concerning God and
who fit the notion they have of him to anything rather than to God, unperverted as that notion may be, suppose themselves to be the most pious — and this above all when they set out to destroy those who, with their whole soul, have devoted themselves "even unto death" to the plain manifestness of the one God who is over all. Further, Celsus, speaking through his Jewish persona, accuses Jesus of not having shown himself free of every evil.
Let Celsus's argument tell us: of what evils, exactly, did Jesus fail to show himself free? For if he means that Jesus was not free of evils in the proper sense, let him set forth clearly some deed of wickedness in him. But if he counts poverty, the cross, and the plotting of depraved men as evils, then it is plain that he must say the same evils befell Socrates too, who was likewise unable to prove himself clear
of such evils. And how great, besides, is the chorus of other poor men among the Greeks who practiced philosophy and willingly took up poverty — as most Greeks know from the records concerning Democritus, who let his property go to pasture for sheep, and concerning Crates, who freed himself by giving the Thebans the money paid him for the sale of his entire estate; and Diogenes too, because of his
extreme simplicity of living, dwelt in a storage jar, and among no one possessed of even middling sense was Diogenes ever counted among the wretched on this account. Further, since Celsus wishes that Jesus not even have been beyond reproach, let him demonstrate it. Which of those pleased by his argument has written down some genuine, reproachable fault of Jesus? Or, if he does not accuse him of these things as reproachable, let him show from what source he learned
that he was not beyond reproach. Jesus, then, accomplished what he promised, making it credible through the very things by which he benefited those who gave heed to him. And seeing continually the fulfillment of what he had said, before it came to pass — that "the gospel would be preached" in the whole world, and that his disciples, having gone out to "all the nations," would proclaim his word, and further concerning being led "before governors
and kings" for no other cause than his teaching — we are struck with awe at him, and day by day we confirm our faith in him. I do not know from what greater and more evident signs Celsus wished the things aforesaid to be made credible — unless, as it appears, not understanding the reasoning, he wished that Jesus, having become man, should suffer nothing human, nor
become for mankind a noble example of how to bear what befalls one — even though these things seem to Celsus most pitiable and most reproachful of all. For in his judgment pain ranks as the worst of evils and pleasure as the supreme good — a position that no philosopher who posits providence and grants that courage, endurance, and greatness of soul are virtues has ever embraced. He did not, then, discredit faith in him by the
...Jesus, through what he endured, but rather he strengthened those who wished to embrace courage, and taught them that the truly and properly blessed life is not here but "in" what is called, according to his own words, "the age to come," while living in what is called the present age is a misfortune, or rather the first and greatest contest of the soul.
After this he says to us that presumably you will not claim that, without having persuaded those here, he set out for Hades to persuade those there. And even if he does not wish it, this is what we say: that even while in the body he persuaded not a few but so many that, on account of the multitude of those persuaded, he was plotted against; and having become a soul stripped of body,
he conversed as a soul with the souls of the dead who had likewise been stripped of their bodies, turning to himself both those among them who were willing, and those whom he saw to be more receptive, for reasons he himself knew, to the arguments he offered. Next after this he says something exceedingly foolish, I do not know how, namely that if, by discovering absurd pretexts by which you were laughably deceived, you suppose that you are truly making a defense, what prevents others as well—all those who, having been condemned, departed in a still more wretched state—from being reckoned
greater and more divine than these angels? But that Jesus, who suffered what is recorded, has nothing at all clearly or plainly in common with those who departed in a more wretched state through sorcery or any other charge whatsoever, is evident to anyone. For no one can point to a work of sorcerers that has turned souls away from the many sins found among human beings and from the outpouring that comes with wickedness. But since the Jew in Celsus, comparing him to robbers,
says that someone could, with equal shamelessness, say even of a robber or a murderer who had been punished that this man was no robber but a god, since beforehand he had told his fellow bandits that he was going to undergo such things as he in fact did undergo—it may be said, first, that it is not on the basis of his having foretold that he would suffer these things that we form our conception of Jesus, of the sort
we hold and openly declare when we think of him as one who descended to us from God. Second, we also say that these very things were in some way foretold in the gospels, since God "was reckoned among the lawless" by the lawless, when they preferred that the robber thrown into prison "for insurrection" "and murder" be released, but wished Jesus to be crucified—and they crucified him between two robbers. And always, among
his genuine disciples, those who bear witness to the truth, Jesus is crucified together with robbers, and suffers among men the same condemnation as they do. And we say that, if these who suffer for the sake of piety toward the Creator—enduring every outrage and every form of death in order to preserve that piety sincere and pure according to the teaching of Jesus—have something in common with robbers, then it is clear that
Jesus too, the father of such teaching, is reasonably compared by Celsus to a robber-chief. But neither did he die in the manner of a partner in crime, nor do these who suffer such things for the sake of piety—being, alone among all men, plotted against on account of the way of honoring the divine that was revealed to them—perish unjustly; nor was Jesus plotted against in an impious way. But observe also the superficiality of the...
...concerning the discourse about the disciples of Jesus at that time, in which he says: Then those who at that time were with him while he was alive and heard his voice and used him as a teacher, when they saw him being punished and dying, neither died with him nor died on his behalf, nor were persuaded to despise punishments, but even denied being his disciples; yet now you die with him. And in these matters, on the one hand, what was done wrong by the disciples while they were still being introduced to the faith and were still imperfect,
and was written down in the Gospels, he believes really happened, so that he may find fault with the teaching; but what they rightly accomplished after that sin, when they spoke boldly before the Jews, and suffered countless things at their hands, and in the end died for the teaching of Jesus, he passes over in silence. For he was unwilling to hear Jesus foretelling to Peter: 'But when you grow old, you will stretch out your'
'hands,' and what follows, to which the Scripture adds: 'This he said, signifying by what death he would glorify God'; nor that James, the brother of John, an apostle who was the brother of an apostle, was put to death by Herod with the sword because of the word of Christ; nor indeed all that Peter and the rest of the apostles did in speaking boldly for the word, and how they went out 'from the presence of the'
'council' after being scourged, 'rejoicing,' 'because they had been counted worthy to be dishonored for the sake of the name,' surpassing by far many of the things recorded among the Greeks about the endurance and courage of those who practiced philosophy. From the beginning, then, this above all was the teaching of Jesus that took firm hold among those who heard him, teaching them to despise the life that is cherished by the many, and to be zealous for a life resembling the life of God—
the life of God. How is the Jew in Celsus not lying when he says that, when present, he won over only ten sailors and tax collectors, the most depraved of men, and not even all of these? For it is clear that even the Jews would admit that he won over not ten only, nor a hundred, nor a thousand, but all at once—at one time five thousand, at another four thousand; and to such a degree
did he win them over that into the deserts they went on following him, spaces that could hold only a sudden gathering of those who, through Jesus, had come to believe in God, and in which he displayed to them not only words but also deeds. By repeating himself he forces us to do something similar, since we are on guard against being thought to have passed over any of the charges he makes. And so in the present discourse,
following the order we have kept in his writing, he says: If, while he himself was alive, he persuaded no one, but after he died those who wished persuaded so many, how is this not utterly absurd? He ought to have said, preserving consistency, that if, after his death, those who wish—not simply anyone who wishes, but those who wish and are able—persuade so many, how much more reasonable is it that he himself, while he dwelt among the living, persuaded far more people,
and with a more powerful word and deeds? He takes for himself, as if it were our answer to his question, when he said: By what reasoning were you led to consider this man the Son of God? For he has made us answer that we were led to this because we also know that his punishment took place for the destruction of the father of evil. For we were led to it by countless other things as well, of which we set forth a small fraction in what precedes, and
With God's help we will set this out not only in dealing with what is supposed to be Celsus's true account, but also in countless other matters. And when we say that we regard him as God's own Son, since he was punished, Celsus says: What then? Were not many others also punished, and no less shamefully? In this Celsus behaves just like the most servile of the
enemies of the word, who suppose that it follows from the story about the crucified Jesus that we worship crucified men. Celsus, being unable to face up to the powers Jesus is recorded to have performed, has often already resorted to slandering them as sorcery; and we have often answered him with argument as best we could. And now he says, as if we were to answer that we considered him
because he cured lame and blind persons, he is the Son of God. He adds also this: as you say, he raised the dead. That he cured lame and blind persons—and that this is precisely why we hold him to be Christ and Son of God—is plain to us from the fact that it stands written likewise among the prophecies: "On that day the eyes of blind men shall be opened, and the ears of deaf men shall hear; on that day the lame one shall bound like a stag." And that
he also raised the dead, and that this is not a fiction of those who wrote the gospels, is established from the fact that, if it were a fiction, many would have been recorded as having risen, including those who had already been in their tombs for a considerable time; but since it is not a fiction, only a very few are mentioned—the synagogue ruler's own daughter (about whom I do not know why he said, "she has not died but
is sleeping," saying something about her that did not apply to all who had died), and the only son of the widow, over whom he was moved with compassion and raised him, having stopped those carrying the corpse, and thirdly Lazarus, who had already been four days in the tomb. And we will say further, concerning these matters, to those more fair-minded, and especially to the Jew, that just as lepers were numerous in the days of
Elisha the prophet, none of them was cleansed but Naaman the Syrian," and "widows were numerous in the days of Elijah" the prophet, "and Elijah was sent to none of them but to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon"—for she had become worthy of the miracle the prophet worked concerning the bread, according to a certain divine judgment—so too there were many dead
in the days of Jesus, but only those rose whom the Word knew to be fit for the resurrection, so that what was done by the Lord might not only be a symbol of certain things, but might also of itself draw many to the wondrous teaching of the gospel. And I would say that, according to the promise of Jesus, the disciples have also done "greater" works than the perceptible ones Jesus did.
For always the eyes of the blind in soul are opened, while ears that had gone deaf to words of virtue now hearken eagerly to talk of God and of the blessed life found in him. And many too, lame in the footsteps of what scripture calls the "inner" man, now that the Word has healed them, do not merely leap but leap "like a deer," an animal hostile to serpents and superior to every
the venom of vipers. And these lame people, once healed, receive from Jesus "authority to tread" with the very feet that had once been lame, treading "above" the serpents and scorpions of wickedness, and in short over all the strength the enemy possesses; and though they tread on it they suffer no harm, for they too have grown mightier than every wickedness and than the venom of the demons. Jesus, then,
in turning his disciples away, does so not from paying no attention at all to sorcerers and to those who profess to work marvels by some means or other (for his disciples had no need of that), but from those who proclaim themselves to be the Christ of God and who try, by means of certain apparitions, to turn Jesus' disciples toward themselves. This is what he meant where he said, "Then if anyone says to you,
'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!'—do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. So if they say to you, 'Look, he is in the wilderness'—do not go out; 'Look, he is in the inner rooms'—do not believe it. For just as the lightning comes out from the east and flashes
as far as the west, so shall the presence of the Son of Man be." And where he says, "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not eat in your name, and drink in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works?' And then I will say to them, 'Depart from me, for you are workers of iniquity.'" Now Celsus, wishing to lump together
the marvels of Jesus with sorcery practiced among men, says in these very words: "O light and truth! In his own voice he plainly confesses—just as you yourselves have set it down in writing—that others too will come to you wielding powers like his, wicked men and sorcerers, and he names a certain Satan as the one who devises such things; so that not even he himself denies that these deeds are in no way divine, but are the works of wicked men."
He is compelled by the truth to expose, at one and the same time, both the deeds of the others and to convict his own. How, then, is it not outrageous to consider one of them a god on the basis of the same works, and the others sorcerers? For on what grounds are we to think the others wicked rather than this man himself, when he uses that very man as his witness? This, at any rate, he himself has admitted, that these are not
marks of a divine nature but of certain deceivers and thoroughly wicked men. Now see whether Celsus is not clearly convicted here of maliciously distorting the argument, since Jesus says one thing about those who will do "signs and wonders," and the Jew in Celsus' work says another. For had Jesus merely instructed his disciples to be wary of those who claim to perform wonders,
without specifying what such people would claim to be, his suspicion might perhaps have had some ground. But since Jesus tells us to be on guard precisely against those who profess to be "the Christ"—which sorcerers do not do—while he also says that some who live wickedly will, in the name of Jesus, work certain powers and cast demons out of people; or rather, if one must put it this way, such a person is indeed disowned,
the trickery associated with the place and every suspicion attaching to those events, while the divinity of Christ and the divinity of his disciples is brought forward, on the ground that it is possible for someone who has made use of his name, and who has been empowered somehow by some power — I do not know how — to pretend that he himself is the Christ, to seem to accomplish deeds similar to those of Christ, and for others too, using the
name of Jesus, to accomplish what seem to be similar deeds to those of his genuine disciples. Paul too, in his second letter to the Thessalonians, declares the manner in which he will someday be disclosed — "the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, the one opposing and exalting himself above everything called god or an object of worship, so that he seats himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be
God." He also tells the Thessalonians once more: "and now you know what restrains, so that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only there is one who restrains at present, until he is removed from the midst; and then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord God will destroy with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his
coming — his coming, whose presence accords with Satan's working, displaying every kind of power together with false signs and wonders, and all wicked deceit among those who are perishing." And setting forth also the reason why the lawless one is permitted to dwell among the living, he says: "because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. And for this reason God sends upon them"
a working of error, so that they may believe the lie, in order that all may be judged who did not believe the truth but took pleasure in wickedness." Let someone, then, tell us whether anything in the gospel or in the apostle's writings can give room for a suspicion of trickery being foretold with reference to the place. And whoever wishes may also
take the prophecy about the antichrist from Daniel. But Celsus falsifies the words of Jesus, since it was not Jesus who said that other men would come using powers similar to his own, evil men and sorcerers — Celsus himself claims that Jesus said such a thing. For just as the power of the enchanters in Egypt was not similar to the extraordinary grace at work in Moses, but the outcome proved that the deeds of the Egyptians were
trickery while those of Moses were divine, so too the deeds of the antichrists and of those who pretend to powers as though they were disciples of Jesus are said to be signs and wonders "of falsehood," prevailing "with all deceit of wickedness among those who are perishing," whereas what Christ and his disciples did bore, as fruit, not deception but the rescue of souls. For who would reasonably say that the better life, one that daily
curtails the effects of wickedness more and more, comes about from deceit? Celsus grew suspicious of what he had made Jesus say from scripture, that some satan would contrive such things. But he also distorts the argument by claiming that Jesus does not deny that these deeds have nothing divine about them but are the works of wicked men, as though he had made things of one kind out of things that are actually of a different kind. And just as
A wolf is not of the same kind as a dog, even though it may seem to have something similar in bodily shape and voice; nor is a wood-pigeon the same as a dove. In the same way, what is accomplished by the power of God has nothing in common with what comes about through sorcery. But we will say this too against Celsus's malicious arguments: are powers indeed produced through sorcery by evil demons, while no power at all is accomplished
from the divine and blessed nature — but human life has admitted only the worse things and made no room whatever for the better? This too seems to me something that must be laid down as applying in every case: that wherever something worse pretends to be of the same kind as something better, there is certainly, on the opposite side, something better as well. So it is also with those who accomplish things through sorcery — that
there must, without question, also be things that come about in life from divine activity. And it belongs to the same reasoning either to do away with both and say that neither occurs, or, if one posits the one — and especially the worse — to acknowledge the better as well. But if someone should posit that the things from sorcery occur, yet not posit the things from divine power, he seems to me
comparable to a man who posits that there are sophistries and persuasive arguments that miss the truth while pretending to present it, but holds that truth and reasoning free of sophistry has no place at all among men. And if we once grant that it follows, from magic and sorcery being real and worked by evil demons — men being charmed by curious invocations and submitting to sorcerers — that what comes from divine power too
must likewise be found among men, then why should we not, with careful scrutiny, examine those who profess these powers by their life and character and by what follows upon their powers — whether harm to human beings or the correction of character — asking who it is that, serving demons through certain incantations and magical devices, produces such things, and who it is that, having become, in his own soul and spirit — and I think in body too — a pure and holy place for
God, and having received a certain divine spirit, does such things for the benefit of human beings and as an inducement to believe in the true God? And if we must, once for all, inquire — without being swept away by the powers themselves — who accomplishes such things from the better source and who from the worse, so that we may neither speak ill of everything nor marvel at and accept everything as divine —
will it not then be plain from what happened in the case of Moses and of Jesus, whole nations having come together after their signs, that these men did by divine power the very things recorded of them? For wickedness and trickery could not have brought together a whole nation, one that rose above not only the images and
things set up by human hands, but every created nature as well, ascending to the uncreated first principle of the God of all things. Now since it is a Jew, in Celsus's text, who says these things, we might say to him: But you, sir, why is it that you have believed the things written among you as accomplished by God through Moses to be divine,
and he tries to argue against those who denounce these things as having come about through sorcery, in the same way as the deeds performed by the wise men of the Egyptians. But then you, imitating the Egyptians who accuse you, accuse as not divine the things that even by your own admission happened through Jesus. For if the outcome, and the whole nation gathered together through the marvels done in Moses, establishes the clear proof that the one who did these things was God—
the one who accomplished them—present in Moses, how will not the same be shown all the more in the case of Jesus, who did something greater than the work of Moses? For Moses took those from the nation descended from the seed of Abraham who by succession had kept circumcision and had become zealous followers of Abraham's customs—men more readily disposed—and led them out of Egypt, setting before them the divine laws which you yourself have believed.
But this man, daring something greater, introduced into a way of life already established beforehand, and into ancestral customs and upbringings shaped according to the laws already laid down, the way of life according to the gospel. And just as it was necessary for Moses to be believed not only by the elders but also by the people, through the signs that stand recorded as his doing, why should the same not hold for Jesus—that he too should be believed by those from
the people who had learned to demand "signs and wonders"? He will need such powers as, because of their being greater and more divine in comparison with those performed through Moses, were capable of drawing people away from Jewish mythology and from the human traditions among them, and of making them accept the one who taught and accomplished these things, on the ground that he surpassed the prophets. For how could he not have surpassed the prophets, he who
was proclaimed by the prophets to be the Christ and savior of the human race? And indeed all the things which the Jew in Celsus says against those who believe in Jesus can equally well be turned into an accusation against Moses; so that it comes to the same thing, or something very similar, to call the sorcery of Jesus and that of Moses alike, since both, so far as the wording of what the Jew in
Celsus says is concerned, can be brought under the same charges. For example, concerning Christ, the Jew in Celsus says: "But O light and truth, Jesus himself expressly declares with his own voice, just as you yourselves have also written, that others too will come to you making use of similar powers, wicked men and sorcerers." But concerning Moses, one who disbelieved might say to the Jew, using the very same
words about Moses, whether an Egyptian or anyone else: "But O light and truth, Moses himself expressly declares with his own voice, just as you yourselves have also written, that others, evil men and deceivers, will come to you employing powers like these. For your law contains this text: 'But if a prophet, or someone who dreams a dream, should arise among you, and he gives you a sign or portent, and that sign
or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying: Let us go and follow other gods, whom you do not know, and let us serve them—you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or of the one who dreams that dream,' and so on." And the one who slanders the words of Jesus says that he calls such a person some kind of satan devising such things by contrivance, while the one who makes the charge common applies it to
He will say that Moses too was a prophet who, dreaming, contrived such things and gave them names. Just as Celsus's Jew says of Jesus that even Jesus himself does not deny that these things are not divine but the works of wicked men, so the man who disbelieves Moses will set forth the same statements about him as were said before, and will say the same thing: "so not even Moses himself denies that these
things are not divine but rather deeds of wicked men." And in this instance too he will act identically: compelled by the truth, Moses simultaneously uncovered the works of others and stood convicted by his own. And when the Jew also says: "How then is it not outrageous, from the same works, to consider the one a god and the others sorcerers?" — someone might say
to him, on account of the words set forth by Moses: "How then is it not outrageous, from the same works, to consider the one a prophet of God and his servant, and the others sorcerers?" And since Celsus, dwelling further on the passage, added to what I have already set out and made public, this also: "For why should one consider the others, on this basis, more wicked than this man, using him as a witness?" — we for our part will add
to what has been said something of the same kind: "For why, on this basis, should those be considered more wicked whom Moses forbids people to trust when they display signs and wonders, rather than Moses himself, on the grounds by which he discredited others in the matter of signs and wonders?" And saying more to the same effect, so as to seem to strengthen his argument, he says: "These things, then, he himself admitted to be marks not of a divine nature but of certain deceivers
and thoroughly wicked men." Who then is he? You, Jew, say it is Jesus; but the one who accuses you, since you are liable to the same charges, will turn the very word "he" back upon Moses. After this, Celsus's Jew says — to preserve the order originally set for the Jew — to those of his own citizens who have
come to believe, speaking as it were to us: "By what, then, were you led, except by the fact that he foretold that after dying he would rise again?" This too will likewise be applied, in the same way as the previous points, to the case of Moses. For we shall say to him: "By what, then, were you led, except by the fact that he wrote such things about his own death: 'And there Moses, servant of the Lord, came to his end, in the land of Moab, by the Lord's word; and they buried him in the land of Moab, near
the house of Phogor. And no one knows his burial place to this day'"? For just as the Jew makes it a reproach that he foretold that after dying he would rise again, so the one who says the like about Moses, in answer to the man who says these things, will say that Moses too wrote — for the Deuteronomy is indeed his — that "No one knows his burial place to this day," thereby dignifying and exalting
his burial as something unknown to the human race. After this the Jew says to his own fellow citizens who believe in Jesus: "Come now, let us also believe that this has been truly said by you. How many others perform such wonders, for the sake of persuading those who listen credulously, profiting from their delusion? Such as they say Zalmoxis too did among the Scythians — the slave of Pythagoras — and Pythagoras himself among
in Italy and Rhampsinitus in Egypt: this last man even "dicing" in Hades "with Demeter" and coming back up bearing "a gift" "from her, a golden hand-towel"; and indeed Orpheus in the land of the Odrysians, and Protesilaus among the Thessalians, and Heracles at Taenarum, and Theseus. But this is the point to examine: whether anyone who truly died has ever risen again in that very body — or do you suppose that the stories of the others
are both fictions and appear so, while for you the denouement of the drama has been devised with decorum or plausibility — his voice upon the stake as he breathed his last, and "the earthquake," and the darkness? Because, forsooth, while alive he could not help himself, but dead he rose and displayed the marks of his punishment [and his hands, how they had been pierced through] — who saw this? A woman
out of her mind, as you say, and perhaps some other of that same band of sorcery, either dreaming in some state and, through his own wish, deluded by a wandering fancy — which has already happened to countless people — or, which is more likely, wishing to astonish the rest with this marvel-mongering and, through such a lie, to furnish an opening for other charlatans. Since, then, it is a Jew who says these things,
we shall answer as to a Jew concerning our Jesus, making the argument about Moses common ground as well, and saying to him: how many others perform such wonders as Moses did, plying their trade for persuasion's sake on those who listen credulously, out of their delusion? And it is more possible to set beside the man who disbelieves Moses the figures of Zalmoxis and Pythagoras, who worked wonders, than to set the Jew there, since he is not exactly devoted to learning about
the histories of the Greeks. And the Egyptian, for his part, disbelieving the marvels told of Moses, will plausibly set beside them Rhampsinitus, saying that it is far more plausible that this man went down into Hades and diced with Demeter and, having snatched a golden hand-towel from her, displays it as a token of having been in Hades and having come back up from there, than that Moses, who wrote of himself, entered "into the thick darkness where God was." And that
he alone drew near to God, beyond the rest. For he wrote it thus: "And Moses alone shall draw near to God, but the rest shall not draw near." We, then, the disciples of Jesus, shall say to the Jew who says these things: come, defend yourself to us concerning faith in Jesus, since you accuse it, and say to the Egyptian and to the Greeks: what will you say to the charges
you have brought against our Jesus, once they have already been brought against Moses as well? And however hard you contend to defend Moses — just as he does have a forceful case and clear facts about him — you will not notice, in the very points by which you defend Moses, that you have unwittingly established Jesus as more divine than Moses. Now since the Jew in Celsus's text calls the heroic stories about those said to have descended into Hades and to have come back up from there
marvel-mongering — on the ground that the heroes became invisible for a certain time and stole themselves away from the sight of all men, and afterward showed themselves again, as though they had come up from Hades (for such, it seems, is the story told about Orpheus in the land of the Odrysians, and Protesilaus among the Thessalians, and Heracles at Taenarum, and further also about Theseus
his own words make that plain), come, let us show that what is reported concerning Jesus—that he was raised from the dead—cannot be compared with these. For each of the heroes said to exist in various places could, had he wished, have stolen himself away from the sight of men and then, after deciding, have returned again to those he had left; but before the eyes of all the Jews Jesus underwent crucifixion, and his body itself was taken down
in the sight of their people. How, then, could it be possible for him to fabricate something similar and say of himself, as is told of those heroes, that he had gone down to Hades and had come back up from there? We say that perhaps such a claim might be made as a defense of the fact that Jesus was crucified, especially because of what is told concerning the heroes who are believed to have gone down to Hades by force—namely, that if, on this supposition,
Jesus had died an obscure death, not one such as to be plainly known by the whole Jewish people, and had then afterward truly risen from the dead, the suspicion held about the heroes would have had room to be said also about him. Perhaps, then, among the other reasons for Jesus's being crucified, this too can be reckoned as contributing: that he died in a conspicuous way, on the cross,
so that no one could say that he had, of his own will, withdrawn from human sight, and that he only seemed to have died but had not died, and that later, when he wished, he appeared again and made a show of the resurrection from the dead. And I think the argument drawn from his disciples is clear and evident, since they gave themselves to a teaching that was dangerous with respect to human life—a teaching they would not have taught so forcefully
about Jesus having been raised from the dead, if they had been fabricating it, seeing that they themselves, far from merely preparing others to hold death in contempt, had done this very thing themselves long before. Consider, too, whether the Jew in Celsus is not being altogether blind in speaking, as though it were impossible for anyone to rise from the dead in his very body; rather, this is what must be examined: whether anyone who has truly died has ever risen
at some point in his very body. For the Jew would not have said this, believing as he does what is recorded in the third book of Kingdoms and in the fourth concerning the boys, of whom the one Elijah raised and the other Elisha. For this reason, I think, Jesus too made his dwelling among the Jews and no other people, since they alone had grown accustomed to extraordinary things,
by the comparison of what they had believed with what was done by him and reported concerning him, so that they might accept that this man, about whom greater things happened and by whom more extraordinary deeds were accomplished, was greater than all those others. But since, after the stories the Jew set forth, he cites Greek accounts of those who supposedly worked wonders and of those said to have risen from the dead, and says to those from among the Jews who believe in Jesus:
"Or do you think that the tales of the others are, and are recognized as, myths, while for you the denouement of the drama has been devised with propriety or plausibility—the cry uttered on the stake as he breathed his last?" We shall say to the Jew that we too have judged the tales you set forth to be myths. But as for the writings common to us and to you, in which not you alone but also
We take it seriously; we do not say at all that these are myths. That is why we believe the writers who told of those who rose from the dead there, as not indulging in fanciful tales, and likewise the one who rose here, as one both foretold and prophesied and risen. But this one, who rose from the dead, is more astonishing than those others, because those were raised by prophets, Elijah and Elisha, while this one was raised by no prophet but by the Father who is in
the heavens. That is why his resurrection accomplished something greater than theirs. For what so momentous has ever come to the world from the children raised by Elijah and Elisha, as has come through the proclaimed resurrection of Jesus, believed to be by divine power? He thinks the earthquake and the darkness are also fabricated marvels; concerning these we have defended ourselves as best we could above,
citing Phlegon, who recorded that such things occurred at the time of the Savior's suffering. And he says that although living he did not help himself, when dead he rose and Jesus showed the marks of his punishment and his hands, how they had been pierced with nails. And we ask him, what does 'help himself' mean? For if it means with regard to virtue, we will say that indeed he helped himself very greatly;
for he neither spoke nor did anything improper, but was truly "led like a sheep to slaughter, and like a lamb before its shearer is silent"; and the gospel testifies that "thus he did not" open "his mouth." But if he takes 'help himself' in terms of ordinary and bodily things, we say that we have shown from the gospels that he came to these things willingly. Then, next after
these things, having stated what comes from the gospel, that he showed the marks of his punishment after rising from the dead, and his hands, how they had been pierced with nails, he asks and says: who saw this? And slandering the account concerning Mary Magdalene, who is recorded as having seen him, he said: a hysterical woman, as you claim. And since it is not she alone who is recorded as having seen Jesus risen but others also, and
in reviling these things Celsus's Jew says: and if anyone else of those from the same sorcery. Then, as though this could happen — I mean, that some fantasy occurs to someone concerning the dead person, as though he were alive — he adds, speaking as an Epicurean, and says that someone, in a certain state of mind, having dreamed, or having been deluded by a wandering fancy according to his own wish, reported such a thing. Which, he says, has already happened to countless
people. But this, even if it seemed to have been said very cleverly, nonetheless does nothing less than establish an unavoidable teaching: namely, that the souls of the dead continue to exist, and that whoever has embraced this teaching has not believed in vain regarding the soul's immortality, or at minimum its persistence — just as Plato, in his work concerning the soul, states that certain "shadow-like apparitions" have been seen near tombs by some of those
already dead. Now the phantoms that occur concerning the soul of the dead arise from some underlying reality, namely the soul which subsists in what is called the luminous body. But Celsus, not wishing this, wants people to hallucinate even while awake, and to be deluded by a wandering fancy according to their own wish; which it is not unreasonable to believe happens in a dream, but for it to happen while awake
is not persuasive unless she was completely out of her mind, delirious, or melancholic. And foreseeing this too, Celsus called the woman "frenzied"—which the recorded account does not indicate; he took this up from somewhere and uses it to accuse the events. So then Jesus, after death, was, as Celsus supposes, sending forth an apparition of the wounds he received on the cross, without truly being wounded in that way;
but as the gospel teaches—which Celsus believes in some parts, wherever he wishes, in order to make an accusation, but disbelieves in others—Jesus summoned one of the disciples who disbelieved and thought the marvel impossible. That disciple had in fact agreed with the woman who claimed to have seen him, on the grounds that it was not impossible for the soul of a dead person to be seen; but he no longer considered it true that
Jesus had been raised in a solid, tangible body. Hence he said, "unless I see," "I will not believe," and he added further, "unless I put my hand into the mark of the nails and touch his side, I will not believe." These things were said by Thomas, who judged that a soul's body can appear to the eyes of sense—having "all" the features of its former form,
"the size and the beautiful eyes and the voice," and often "even the same kind of garments about the body." And Jesus, calling Thomas to him, said, "Bring your finger here and see my hands; and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving but believing." And this was indeed consistent
with everything that had been prophesied about him—among which this too was included—and with what had been done to him and what had befallen him: that this should happen, marvelous beyond all else. For it had been spoken beforehand in the person of Jesus, in the prophet: "My flesh will dwell in hope; you will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor will you allow your holy one to see corruption." And
at his resurrection he was, as it were, at a certain boundary between the solidity of the body he had before the suffering and the condition of a soul appearing naked in such a body. Hence, when "his disciples, and Thomas" with them, were together "in the same place, Jesus comes, though the doors were shut, and took his place in their midst, saying, Peace to you. Then he says to
Thomas, Bring your finger here," and so on. And in the Gospel according to Luke, while Simon and Cleopas were conversing "with one another about all the things that had happened" to them, Jesus came up to them and "went along with them. And their eyes were held so that they did not recognize him; and he said to them, What are these words that you are exchanging with
one another as you walk?" And once "their eyes were opened, and they recognized him," the Scripture then states, word for word: "and he became invisible to them." So even if Celsus wishes to lump together, with other apparitions and other people who imagined things, what concerns Jesus and those who saw him after the resurrection, still, to those who examine the matter fairly and sensibly, it will appear
the more paradoxical point. After this, Celsus, disparaging what is written in no negligible way, says that if Jesus really wanted to display divine power, he ought to have appeared to the very men who had insulted him, and to the one who had condemned him, and simply to everyone. For to us too it truly appears, according to the gospel, that after the resurrection he was not seen in such a way as he had previously appeared publicly and to everyone. But
in Acts it is written: "appearing to them over forty days," he announced to the disciples "the things concerning the kingdom of God"; whereas in the gospels it is not the case that he was always with them. Rather, at one point he appeared after eight days "with the doors having been shut," in their midst, and at another point in certain other such ways. And Paul too, in the last part of his first letter to the Corinthians,
writes such things — as though he had not appeared publicly in the same manner as in the time before the passion: "For among the first things I handed on to you was what I myself had received: that the Christ died on behalf of our sins, just as the scriptures foretold," "and that he was seen by Cephas, and afterward by the twelve. Following that he was seen by upward of five hundred brothers at one time, the majority of whom are still alive, though a few have fallen asleep. Then
he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. And last of all, as to one untimely born, he was seen by me also." Now I suppose that the matters concerning this passage are something great and marvelous, and greater than the worth not only of the many among believers but even of those who are quite advanced in progress. Among these the reason could be shown why he, having risen from the dead, was not seen
in the same way as in the earlier time. But since there are many considerations, as befits a treatise of this kind written against the argument leveled at Christians and their faith, let us see whether, by setting out a few points reasonably, we shall be able to reach those who are going to hear this defense. Jesus, while being one, was, in conception, more than one, and not all who looked upon him beheld him in the same way. And that he was, in conception, more than one is clear
from the saying "I am the road, and the truth, and the life," and "I am the loaf," and "I am the gate," and countless others. And that, even when seen, he did not appear in the same way to those who looked upon him, but according to what those who looked were able to receive — this will become evident to those who carefully weigh why, at the moment he was on the verge of being transfigured atop the high mountain, he took not all
the apostles with him, but only Peter and James and John — as being the only ones able to receive the sight of his glory at that time, and able also to perceive Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory, and to hear them conversing with him, and the voice that came from heaven out of the cloud. And I think that even before going up onto the mountain, where
the disciples alone came to him and he taught them the things concerning the beatitudes — at that time, being somewhere below the mountain, "when evening had come," he healed those brought to him, freeing them from every disease and every infirmity — he did not appear the same to those who were sick and in need of his healing as he did to those who, because they were healthy, were able to go up the mountain with him. But even if, in accordance with
He interpreted the parables privately to his own disciples, though they had been spoken with concealment to the crowds outside. Just as, in respect of hearing, those who heard the resolution of the parables were superior to those who heard the parables without their resolution, so too, in respect of sight — entirely with regard to the soul, and, I think, also with regard to the body. This is shown by the fact that Judas is not shown as always appearing the same.
When he was about to betray him, he had spoken as though to the crowds going along with him who did not recognize him: "The one I kiss, he is the one." I think the Savior himself also indicated something of this sort through the words: "Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me." Since we, then, hold such a view about Jesus, not only with respect to the inner and hidden divinity
concealed from the many, but also with respect to the body that was transfigured, when he wished and before whom he wished, we say that all were able to see the Jesus who had not yet stripped off "the rulers and the authorities" and had not yet died "to sin," but that all those who had previously seen him were not able to see the one who had stripped off "the rulers and the authorities" and no longer had anything capable of being seen by the many
who had previously seen him. Hence, sparing them, he did not appear to all after rising from the dead. And why say "to all"? For he was not even always with the apostles and disciples themselves, nor did he always appear to them, since they were unable to contain the sight of him continuously. For once he had completed the dispensation, his divinity was more radiant — the very divinity which Cephas, Peter, as it were the "firstfruits" of the
apostles, was able to see, and after him the twelve, Matthias having been enrolled in place of Judas, and after them "to five hundred brothers at once." "Then he appeared to James, then to" the other "apostles" besides the twelve, "all of them" — perhaps to the seventy. "And last of all," to Paul, as it were to "one untimely born," who also understood how he could say: "To me, the very least of all the saints, this grace was given." And
perhaps "the very least" is equivalent to "untimely born." Just as, then, no one could easily find fault with Jesus for taking up the high mountain not all the apostles but only the three already named, when he was about to be transfigured and to display the brightness of his garments together with the glory of Moses and Elijah conversing with him, so too no one could
reasonably find fault with the apostolic writings for reporting that Jesus was seen after the resurrection not by all, but by those whom he saw had received eyes capable of seeing his resurrection. And I think it is also useful for the defense of the matters before us that it is said of him in this way: "For Christ died and rose again for this very purpose, so that he would be sovereign over both the living and the dead." For observe in these words that
Jesus "died," "so that he might rule the dead," "and rose," so that he would be sovereign not merely "over the dead" but "over the living" as well. And the apostle knows dead people over whom Christ is lord — those enumerated in this way in the first letter to the Corinthians: "For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable." And he knows living people, those who will be changed, who are different from the dead who will be raised. And he also has
The wording about these things is as follows: "and we shall be changed," said next after "the dead will be raised first." But also in the first letter to the Thessalonians, in different words, he presents the same distinction, saying that some are those who are asleep and others those who are alive: "We do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, concerning those who are asleep, so that you may not grieve as also the
rest do, who have no hope. For if we trust that Jesus died and rose again, so too will God, through Jesus, bring with him those who have fallen asleep. This we tell you by a word from the Lord: we who are alive and remain until the Lord's coming will not go ahead of those who have fallen asleep." As for the account that appeared to us concerning the places,
we set it out in the commentaries we dictated on the first letter to the Thessalonians. And do not be surprised if not all the crowds who have come to believe in Jesus see his resurrection, since Paul, writing to the Corinthians as to people who cannot take in more, says: "But I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified." Of the same kind is also this:
"For you were not yet able; but indeed not even now are you able, for you are still fleshly." So then, the Word, doing everything by divine judgment, recorded concerning Jesus that before the passion he appeared without qualification to the majority, and this not always; but after the passion he no longer appeared as before, but rather with a discernment that measured out to each what was fitting. Just as it is recorded that
"God appeared to Abraham," or to one among the holy ones, and this "appearing" did not happen continually but at intervals, and was not visible to everyone — so understand likewise that the Son of God appeared, by a comparable judgment, to those he was said to have shown himself to. We have therefore defended the matter, as far as we are able in a work of this kind, against what
would have been necessary, if he had really wished to display divine power, to appear to the very ones who had abused him and to the one who had condemned him, and in short to appear to everyone. It was not necessary, then, that he appear to the one who had condemned him, nor to those who had abused him. For Jesus spared both the one who had condemned him and those who had abused him, so that they might not be struck with "blindness," of the sort with which the men in Sodom were struck, when they were plotting against the hour of those entertained as guests by Lot, namely the
angels. And this is made clear by the following: "And the men stretched out their hands and pulled Lot in to themselves, into the house, and shut the door; and those stationed at the entrance of the house, both small and great, they struck with blindness, so that they grew weary searching for the door." Jesus, then, wished to display his power, which is divine,
to each of those able to see it, and to see it in the measure that each could take in. And it was for no other reason that he took care not to appear except on account of the capacities of those who could not take him in when seen. And Celsus' remark was taken up in vain, that he no longer feared any man once dead and, as you say, being god, nor was he sent for this purpose in the first place, that
escape notice. For he was sent not only to be known, but also to escape notice — for not everything that he was was known even by those who knew him; something of him escaped their notice, while there were others to whom he remained entirely unknown. And it was to those who had become sons of "darkness" and "night," yet had given themselves over to becoming sons of "day" and "light," that he threw open the gates of "light." And the savior, the Lord, came to us more as a good physician to those full of sins than to the righteous.
Let us see, then, in what way the Jew in Celsus's work says: if indeed this much at least was owed as a display of divinity, then at any rate he ought to have vanished immediately from the stake. This too seems to me to resemble the argument of those who set themselves against providence and
sketch out for themselves alternatives to what actually exists, saying that it would have been better if the world were as they have sketched it. For where they sketch out things that are possible, they are shown to be making the world worse, so far as lies in them, by their sketching; and where they seem to depict things no worse than what exists, they are shown to be wishing for what is impossible by nature — so that either way they are made ridiculous.
So here too, that it was not impossible for him, since his was the more divine nature, to become invisible whenever he wished, is evident of itself, but it is made clear also from what has been written about him — for those, at least, who do not accept some of the things written, in order that they may bring accusations against the doctrine, while supposing others of them to be fabrications. Now it is written in the Gospel according to Luke that after the
resurrection, Jesus, "taking the bread," "blessed it and, breaking it, gave it" to Simon and to Cleopas; and once the bread had been taken by them, "their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he became invisible to them." Now we wish to show how it would not have been more useful for the whole economy for him to have become bodily invisible immediately from the stake. For the things
recorded as having happened to Jesus do not, in the bare wording and the historical narrative, contain the whole contemplation of the truth; for each of them is shown, by those who read the scripture more intelligently, to be a symbol of something as well. Just as, then, his being crucified holds the truth signified in "I have been crucified with Christ," and in what is meant by "but may it never be mine to boast except in
the cross of my Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been crucified to me and I to the world" — and his death was necessary because of "for the death he died, he died to sin once for all," and because the righteous man says, "being conformed to his death," and "for if we died together with him, we shall also share his life" — so too his burial reaches to
those who are conformed to his death, who were crucified together with him and who died alongside him, just as it was also said to Paul: "for we were buried with him through baptism" and we were raised with him. But as for the things recorded about the burial, the tomb, and the one who buried him, we shall discuss them more fittingly at greater length elsewhere, where it will be appropriate to speak chiefly of these matters. For now, what has been said is sufficient.
the clean linen cloth in which Jesus' clean body had to be wrapped, and the new tomb "which Joseph had cut in the rock," "in which no one had yet ever been laid," or, as John says, "in which no one had yet been placed." And consider whether the agreement of the three evangelists, who took care to record the hewn or quarried
tomb in rock, can move anyone — so that the person examining the wording of what is written may see something worth noting both about this and about the newness of the tomb, which Matthew and John report, and about the fact that no one had ever been dead there, according to Luke and John. For it was necessary that he who was not to be like the rest of the dead, but was to show signs of life even in
deadness — showing water and blood, and being, if I may so put it, a new kind of dead man — should come to be in a new and clean tomb; so that, just as his birth was purer than every other birth, in that he was born not from union but from a virgin, so too his burial should have this purity, signified symbolically by the fact that his body was laid in
a newly constructed tomb, not built up out of selected stones with a joining that was not natural, but hewn and cut out of a single rock united throughout. Now, as for the narrative and the ascent from the things recorded as having happened to the realities of which the events were signs — someone could recount these matters more grandly and more devoutly, setting them out at a more fitting opportunity
in a treatise devoted to them; but as for the wording, one might account for it in this way as well: that in keeping with the one who chose to undergo being hung upon the stake, it was fitting also to preserve what follows from that premise, so that, having been taken down as a man, by dying as a man he should also be buried as a man. But even if it had been written in the gospels, on the same premise, that from the stake
he immediately became invisible, Celsus and the unbelievers would have found fault with what was written, and would have leveled this charge too, saying: Why on earth did he become invisible after the cross, rather than arranging this before his suffering? If then, having learned from the gospels that he did not immediately become invisible from the stake, they think they have grounds to accuse the account —
though it did not invent, as they saw fit to demand, that he immediately became invisible from the stake, but reported the truth — how is it not reasonable for them to believe also in his resurrection, and how, when he wished, "with the doors shut," he "stood in the midst" of the disciples, and at another time, after giving bread to two of his acquaintances, he immediately "became invisible to them" following certain words he had spoken to them? And where did
Celsus's Jew get the idea that Jesus was hiding? For he says of him: what messenger, once sent, when he ought to announce the things he was commanded, hides himself? For he was not hiding, he who said to those seeking to seize him: "Day after day I was in the temple, teaching openly, and you did not lay hold of me." As for what follows, being a repetition by Celsus, having already answered it once we will be content with what
as previously stated. For it has also been written above, with respect to the objection: was it that, while distrusted in the body, he preached openly to all, but when he would have furnished strong proof by rising from the dead, he appeared secretly to one woman alone and to his own companions? But it is not even true that he appeared to one woman alone; for it is written in the Gospel according to Matthew that “Late on the Sabbath,
as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and came and rolled away the stone.” And shortly after, Matthew says: “And behold, Jesus met them” (clearly the aforementioned Marys), “saying, Greetings. And they came up”
and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.” This too has been said with respect to the point that while being punished he was indeed seen by all, but having risen he was seen by one only — which is what we were addressing when we defended against the charge that not everyone beheld him. And now too we shall say that his human aspects were visible to all, but the more divine ones (I mean not those that stand in relation to other things, but those that concern
an inner distinction) are not able to be grasped by all. But observe also Celsus's contradiction of himself right at his own feet. Having just said beforehand that he appeared secretly to one woman alone and to his own companions, he immediately adds: while being punished he was indeed seen by all, but having risen, by one only — the very opposite of what ought to have been. And what does he even suppose “ought to have been”? Let us hear. The opposite of his being seen by all while being punished, but by one only having risen —
for as far as his own wording goes, he meant something both impossible and absurd: that while being punished he was seen by one, but having risen, by all. Or how else will you explain “the opposite of what ought to have been”? Now Jesus taught us also who it was who sent him, in the saying “No one has known the Father except the Son,” and in “No one has ever seen God; but the only-begotten,
God — he who dwells within the Father's bosom has declared him” — that one, speaking as a theologian, reported the things concerning God to his genuine disciples; and finding traces of these in the writings, we have grounds for speaking as theologians ourselves — in one place hearing, “light is what God is, and darkness has no place in him at all” — while elsewhere: “God is spirit, and those who worship him are to worship him in spirit and”
in truth.” But also there are countless things bound up with why the Father sent him. Let whoever wishes learn these, partly from the prophets who proclaimed him beforehand and partly from the evangelists; and not a few things he will learn as well from the apostles — Paul above all. Moreover, this one leads the pious to the light, but will punish sinners — which Celsus, not having seen,
has done; whereas in fact he will guide the pious toward the light, and will have mercy on sinners, or on those who repent. After this he says: if he wished to remain hidden, why was the voice heard from heaven proclaiming him son of God? But if he did not wish to remain hidden, why the punishment, and why the death? And he supposes that in this he is exposing an inconsistency in what is written about him, not seeing that neither
he wanted everything about himself to be known to everyone, even to those who happened to be nearby, and none of what concerned him to remain hidden. At any rate, the voice out of heaven that declared him God's own son, saying, "Here is my son, the one I love; my favor rests on him," is not recorded as having occurred within the hearing of the crowds, as Celsus's Jew supposed; rather, even the voice at the
very high mountain, coming from the cloud, could be perceived only by his fellow climbers. Indeed such is the nature of the divine voice — audible solely to those the speaker intends to hear it — and I do not even mean to say that what is recorded as the voice of God is in every case simply air that has been struck, or a percussion of air, or whatever it is that is said in treatises on sound; rather, such a voice reaches a hearing
more excellent than the perceptible kind, and more divine. And whenever the speaker wishes his own voice not to be audible to all, the one who "has" the better "ears" hears God, while the one whose hearing has been deafened in soul is insensible to God speaking. So much, then, for why the voice from heaven proclaiming him Son of God was heard [by only a few]. As for whether he did not want to remain hidden, why then did punishment come upon him, or why did death overtake him? What has been said at greater length above about the suffering
is enough for us. After this, Celsus's Jew sets forth as though it were a logical consequence something that is not a logical consequence. For it does not follow, from the fact that he wanted to teach us through the punishments he suffered to despise even death, that he should have summoned everyone plainly into the light, once risen from the dead,
and taught them the reason for which he had come down. For he had already, earlier, called everyone into the light, saying, "Come to me, all you who toil and carry heavy burdens, and I will grant you rest." And the reason for which he had come down is recorded among the words he spoke at length in the beatitudes and the sayings that follow them, in the parables, and likewise in his discourses with the scribes and Pharisees. As for the Gospel according to John,
it sets forth all that he taught, presenting the majesty of Jesus's speech not in mere wording but in substance; and it is clear from the gospels that "his word was spoken with authority," at which people also marveled. And to all this Celsus's Jew adds: this, then, is what we have from your own writings, for which we need no other witness; for you
contradict yourselves. But we have shown that, in comparison with our own gospel writings, much nonsense has been spouted in the Jew's words, whether directed against Jesus or against us. And I do not think he has actually demonstrated how we contradict ourselves — he only supposes so. But since the Jew adds to all this, that in general, what god, O most exalted and heavenly one, who is present among
men goes disbelieved? — we must say to him that even according to the law of Moses, God is recorded as having come to the Hebrews most manifestly — not only through the signs and wonders in Egypt, and further the crossing of the Red Sea and the pillar "of fire" and the cloud of light, but also when the ten commandments were declared to the whole people, and were disbelieved by
knowing this; for they would not, if they trusted what had been seen and heard, have made the calf, nor would they have "exchanged their glory for the likeness of a calf that eats grass," nor would they have spoken to each other concerning the calf, "These, Israel, are the gods who brought you up out of Egypt's land." And see whether these are not the very same people who, confronted with such great wonders and so many manifestations
of God, both earlier disbelieved throughout the whole wilderness, just as the law of the Jews records, and also, at the astonishing coming of Jesus, were not won over either by the words spoken with authority by him or by the astonishing things done by him in the sight of the whole people. And I consider these things sufficient for anyone who wishes to establish the Jews' unbelief toward Jesus, since
this unbelief followed consistently from what was written from the beginning about the people. For I would say to the Jew who speaks in Celsus's work: what god, present among human beings, is disbelieved, and that too by those who hope for him? Or why on earth do those who have long been awaiting him fail to recognize him? What do you people wish to answer to our inquiries? What deeds seem to you, as far as your own supposition goes, to be greater—
those in Egypt and in the wilderness, or those which we say Jesus performed among you? For if those are greater than these, in your view, how is it not immediately shown that it belongs to the same character, both to disbelieve the greater and to despise the lesser? For that is what is supposed concerning the things we say about Jesus.
But if the things concerning Jesus are said to be equal to those recorded by Moses, what strange thing has befallen a people that disbelieved at both beginnings of these events? For the beginning of the lawgiving was under Moses, in which the sins of the unbelieving and sinning among you are recorded; and it is agreed that the beginning of the second lawgiving and covenant came to be for us according to Jesus. And you bear witness,
by the very things through which you disbelieve Jesus, that you are sons of those who disbelieved the divine manifestations in the wilderness; and what was said by our Savior will be said to you as well, since you have disbelieved him, namely, "So then you are witnesses and you consent to the deeds of your fathers"; and the prophecy that says, "Your life shall hang before your eyes,
and you shall not believe in your life," is fulfilled in you; for you did not believe in the life that had come to dwell among the human race. Now Celsus, in fashioning the persona of the Jew, did not find such things to put in his mouth as could not be brought against him from the legal and prophetic scriptures. For he finds fault with Jesus, saying such things about him: he threatens and reviles lightly,
whenever he says, "Woe to you" and "I tell you beforehand." For in these he openly admits that he is unable to persuade—something which neither a god nor even a sensible man would experience. But see whether this does not turn directly back upon the Jew. For God threatens in the legal and prophetic scriptures, and reviles, whenever he says—no less than the "woe" in the gospel—
Consider what is said in Isaiah in this vein: "Woe to those who join house to house and bring field near to field" and "Woe to those who rise early in the morning and pursue strong drink" and "Woe to those who haul their sins behind them as though with a long cord"; also "Woe to those who call the evil good and the good evil" and "Woe to those among you who are strong, who drink
wine." And you could find countless others besides. How are these not similar in their threats to the things he says Jesus said—"Woe, sinful nation, people full of sins, evil offspring, lawless sons" and what follows, upon whom such great threats are brought down—threats no less severe than those he claims Jesus uttered? Or is it not a threat, and a great one at that, which says, "Your land
is desolate; your cities lie burned by fire; foreigners devour your land before your very eyes, and it has been laid waste, overthrown by foreign peoples"? And how are the words spoken to the people in Ezekiel not abuse as well, where the Lord says to the prophet, "You dwell in the midst of scorpions"? Have you noticed, Celsus, what you have done in making the Jew say about
Jesus that he threatens and reviles lightly, whenever he says, "Woe to you" and "I forewarn you"? Do you not see that the very things your Jew says in accusing Jesus could equally be said against him concerning God? For the God found in the prophets is caught, on the Jew's own reckoning, in exactly the same charges, as though unable to persuade otherwise. And further, I would
say to those who think that Celsus's Jew is right to bring this charge against Jesus, that there are also a great many curses recorded in Leviticus and Deuteronomy; and if the Jew, standing by the scripture, would offer some defense concerning these, we shall offer this same defense, or an even better one, concerning what are held to be the reproaches and threats spoken by Jesus. And concerning
the law of Moses itself, we will be able to offer a defense better than the Jew's, since we have been taught by Jesus to hear the words of the law with more understanding than he has. But even the Jew, if he sees the intent of the prophetic words, will be able to show that God does not threaten and revile lightly when he says "Woe" and "I forewarn you," and how a God who speaks
such things for the sake of turning people back would say them—things which Celsus thinks not even a sensible man would say. And Christians too, knowing one God, the God in the prophets and in the Lord, will show the reasonableness of what are taken to be the threats and, as Celsus calls them, reproaches. And a few words will be said on this point to Celsus, who professes to be both a philosopher and to know our teachings—namely, that
my friend, if in Homer the Hermes character says to Odysseus, "Why is it, unhappy man, that you go alone over the heights?"—do you accept the defense that says the Homeric Hermes speaks to Odysseus in this way for the sake of turning him back (since flattery and saying pleasant things belong rather to the Sirens, beside whom lies a heap of bones, and who say, "Come here, much-praised Odysseus, great glory of the Achaeans")—
But if my prophets, and Jesus himself, speak the word "woe," and what you regard as insults, for the sake of the conversion of their hearers, is nothing thereby arranged for the benefit of the hearers through such words, and does he not bring such a word to them as a healing remedy? Unless, that is, you wish to hold that god, or the one who shares in the divine nature and converses with men, considers the
things that belong to his own nature and what is fitting to his own dignity, but no longer looks to what is fitting to promise to the men who are being arranged and led by his word, and to converse with each according to his underlying character. And how is it not ridiculous, this claim that Jesus is said to be unable to persuade — a claim made common not only against the Jew — when there are many such things in the
prophecies; yet even among the Greeks, where each person who won great renown for wisdom proved unable to persuade those plotting against him, or his judges, or his accusers, to cease from wickedness and travel through philosophy toward virtue? After this the Jew says to him — clearly speaking in accordance with what pleases the Jews — that we hope, of course, to rise again in the body and to have
eternal life, and that the one sent to us will be the example and originator of this, showing that it is not impossible for someone to be raised by god together with the body. We do not know, then, whether the Jew would call the expected Christ a pattern of resurrection displayed in his own person; well, suppose we grant that this is indeed what he thinks and says — we will answer the one who said, from our
own writings, that he has spoken to us: My good man, did you read those passages in which you suppose you are accusing us, and yet not go through the resurrection of Jesus, and the fact that he is "firstborn from the dead"? Or is it, since you do not wish these things to have been said, that they were not said at all? But since the Jew, in Celsus, still speaks and admits the resurrection of bodies, I do not think
it opportune now to go through this matter with someone who holds both the belief and the assertion that bodies rise again, whether he works out this position clearly for himself and can give a good account of the doctrine, or not, but rather assents to the doctrine in a more mythical fashion. Let this, then, be said in this way to Celsus's Jew. But since after this he says: "Where is he, then, so that we may see"
and believe" — we will say to him: Where, then, is he now who spoke in the prophets and who performed wonders — so that, seeing him, our belief in his being a portion of god would follow? Or is it permitted to you to make a defense as to why god has not always appeared to the race of the Hebrews, while the same defense is not granted to us concerning Jesus, who once
rose and persuaded his disciples concerning his own resurrection, and persuaded them to such a degree that, through what they suffer, they show to all that, because they see eternal life and the resurrection demonstrated to them both in word and in deed, they treat as play all the hardships of this life? After this the Jew says: "Or did he come down for this purpose, that we should disbelieve?" To whom it will be said: not
He came for this reason, that he might bring about unbelief in the Jews; but foreknowing that this would happen, he foretold it and made use of the Jews' unbelief for the calling of the nations. For "by their trespass salvation came to the nations," concerning whom the Christ who speaks in the prophets says: "A people I did not know served me; at the hearing of the ear they obeyed me," and "I was found
by those who did not seek me, I became manifest to those who did not ask for me." And it is clear that the Jews were also punished in this life after they had done to Jesus what they did. Let the Jews say, if they bring charges against us and declare: How admirable, in your view, is God's providence and love for humanity, seeing that you have been punished and deprived both of Jerusalem and of what is called the sanctuary and of the
most holy worship! For whatever they say in defense concerning God's providence, we shall establish it all the more, and speak even better of it, saying that God's providence proved admirable in making use of that people's sin so that those from the nations might be called through Jesus — strangers to "the covenants" and estranged from the promises — into the kingdom of God. And these things too
the prophets foretold beforehand that, because of the Hebrew people's sins, God would choose not a nation but individuals gathered from everywhere, and that having chosen "the foolish things of the world" he would cause the unintelligent nation to come to be among the divine words, God's kingdom being taken up from the former and given to the latter. For the present it is enough to set forth, out of many passages,
the prophecy from the song of Deuteronomy concerning the calling of the nations, which runs as follows, spoken in the person of the Lord: "For they stirred my jealousy with what is not god, they angered me with their idols; so I too will stir their jealousy with what is not a nation, with a senseless nation I will anger them." Then, as an epilogue to all this, the Jew says concerning Jesus: he then
was a man, and of such a kind as the truth itself makes plain and the account shows. But I do not know whether a man, having dared to sow throughout the whole inhabited world reverence for God and teaching after his own pattern, is able to do what he wishes without God's help, and to prove stronger than all who fight against the spread of his teaching — kings and rulers and the senate of the Romans and
the rulers and the people everywhere. How, moreover, can human nature, having nothing superior within itself, turn so great a multitude? And it is no wonder if it turns the prudent, but also the most irrational and those given over to their passions, and those who, so far as their irrationality goes, are hardest to bring over to greater self-control. But inasmuch as Christ constituted God's power and the Father's wisdom,
for this reason he has done these things and still does them, even if neither Jews nor Greeks wish it — those who disbelieve his word. We, then, shall not cease trusting in God as Jesus Christ instructed, and shall not cease seeking to turn those blind to reverence for God, even if those who are truly blind revile us as blind, along with those who lead people astray, whether Jews or Greeks — we shall not cease turning those who agree with them
they charge us with herding people like cattle — a fine sort of herding indeed, that turns the licentious into the self-controlled, or at least sets them advancing toward self-control, and the unjust into the just, or at least advancing toward justice, and the foolish into the prudent, or at least making their way toward prudence, and the cowardly, ignoble, and unmanly into brave and steadfast men, displaying this above all in their struggles on behalf of piety toward
the God who created all things. So Jesus Christ came proclaimed beforehand not by one prophet only but by all of them. And this too was a mark of Celsus's ignorance, to attribute to the Jewish character the claim that a single prophet had foretold the Christ. And since Celsus's Jew is introduced saying these things, as though supposedly in accordance with his own law, he too, somewhere thereabouts, brought
his speech to a close, having also said other things not worth remembering. And I too will here bring to a close the second of the books dictated by me in reply to his treatise. And with God granting it, and the power of Christ visiting our soul, we will attempt in the third book to deal with what Celsus wrote next in sequence.